Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

cnn breaking news.

i've just seen a developing story from cnn, they show more evidence towards the threat level rising to 5 within the next few hours and patient zero has been discovered as a five year old boy from Mexico. Since Obama's last visit to Mexico it has been reported he has contracted swine flu.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.250 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not a crystal ball. We need to wait for clear evidence of a WHO announcement. The supposed "Patient Zero" is already in the article and some of the problems with this identification are discussed above. Rmhermen (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

International press reporting W.H.O. saying Level 5 close and imminent [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.51.25 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

--If the WHO announces a level 5 it's rumored most U.S. schools will shut down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolOne99 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to report rumors, or even initial reports. We are writing an encylopedia article based on the best information available from multiple reliable sources. Let's not fall into the trap of the newsmen who must report quickly and so sometimes report incorrectly. Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to illustrate how ridculous that rumor is... The United States is a nation of 300 million, it has a shit-ton of schools (the dept of Education now teaches shit-ton measurments instead of the metric system). The overwhelming majority of which are over 100 miles away from an infection. Infact of the 263 cities with populations over 100,000, the vast majority are over 100 miles of a confirmed or even suspected case. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rmhermen. If level 5 is reached we will enter that information into the article, but not before. Cordovao (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is easy to get carried away sometimes. However, we also don't want to be an out-of-date encyclopedia, so we should be on the ball when the facts become evident. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews is the place to write breaking news stories. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO is holding a press conference right now to announce level 5. Plenty of sources should be available shortly. And yes, wikinews is the place for breaking news, but once sources are available it should be added to this article. Wine Guy Talk 20:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

Resolved

In the first paragraph of the introduction, it says "Despite the scale of the alert, the WHO stated on April 29 that the majority of people infected with the virus make a full recovery without need of medical attention or antiviral drugs." "with the virus make a full recovery" doesn't make sense; does it mean "with the virus will make" or "with the virus have made"? I checked the cited source, but it didn't clarify from what I could tell. Cordovao (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads as a continuing? tense (My 7th grade english teacher is shouting in my head right now). Its based on past evidence but is general enough to assertain WHO's theory of how the rest of this will play out. The majority people who become infected, make a recovery with without drugs. WHO applies to all the people that have become infected, are infected now, or will become infected. (Unless the virus changes again) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we shouldn't really make such sweeping predictions, I've changed this to read "have made", since all we can really say is that is what has happened so far. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is a bit awkward, but we have to distinguish between virulence (level of lethality) and epidemicity (how easily the virus spreads), and all in the context of epidemiological known unknowns, to coin a phrase. There are many variables, but part of the problem is that we're dealing with the law of large numbers. A tiny percentage of a very large number is itself a large number, such that a global pandemic of low lethality shall generate a lot of dead people —even a flu virus can win the lottery. Hence the WHO's caveat —most people shall recover, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Level 5, how to approach

Please do not adjust the article to say level 5 has been reached without citing a reliable source. We know the level has been reached, but please cite to a reliable source nonetheless. Thank you in advance. Cordovao (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN has it. I'm not great with editing so I'll leave it up to some of the more technically inclined people to do it. I'm more here for fact checking. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Added. Good to have you here. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome. :) Thank you for your source, and thank you Tim for adding it. Cordovao (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO link in the lead needs updating as well but I can't currently get their page to load. Rmhermen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally got the WHO page to load, but they haven't updated their Current Level illustration. We will need to update our link after they update theirs. 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Level 6

Actually, I heard on the news today that it was raised to a level 6. I'll try to find a source for that. hmwithτ 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, it is confirmed 35 minutes ago at press briefing at WHO it was raised to 5, I don't think they raise it to 6 in under 30 min. _→AzaToth 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NO, it's on CNN right now and it was raised to a level 5. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG, the news was wrong. Wow, I almost want to call in and complain. I literally just heard it moments ago. I looked, and I can see that this is totally false. They must have accidentally said "level 6" instead of "level 5". That's a big mistake. It was only local news (Columbus, Ohio), but I'm going to call the station and make sure it gets corrected. hmwithτ 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It happens, with how fast updates are coming. New Zealand announced "six dead" in the US 48 hours ago... rootology (C)(T) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to interfere with your non-Wikipedia decisions, but may I venture it was an accident as you suggested. All humans make mistake, and so long as they said it is level 5 later on I do not believe a complaint is necessary. Cordovao (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Its important to remember that the WHO director is the director of an international health organization. Her comments are primarialy directed at national leaders; national health organizations; and medical centers. While we record her comments in an encylopedia nature and the press covers it, her comments are not directly intedended for private individuals. Wash your hands, cover your mouth when you cough, and prepare your zombie defense kits. Its not yet time to start looting or shooting people in the head. For most of us, nothing actually changes from 4 to 5 to 6, only the wikipedia article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as level 6?

RE: Pandemic_Severity_Index#Guidelines

I am confused, this section of wikipedia only goes up to level 5, and the graph, from the CDC, only goes up to level 5, quoting the CDC:

Future pandemics will be assigned to one of five discrete categories of increasing severity (Category 1 to Category 5)"

Can someone clarify in the Pandemic_Severity_Index article? Ikip (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer: Yes (level 6 is a pandemic). hmwithτ 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Better Answer: The CDC classification is diffrent from the WHO scheme. This page uses the WHO scheme. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a much better answer. Any ref for the WHO scheme. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:FedFluPandemicResponse.png This page has an image of both side by side. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect I should have named that WHOFedPandemicResponse! I hadn't expected the image to be cropped, so the original name is a bit of a misnomer now. kencf0618 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please rename article to either "2009 flu outbreak" or "2009 flu pandemic"

The fact that it traveled through a bird and then a pig is meaningless now that the flu is spreading person to person.

Currently it is not yet categorized as pandemic, thus keep it named outbreak but please remove the work swine from this article. Mineralè (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Read above, this is quite a heated issue.  GARDEN  21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if we did we would have to have a 2008 flu outbreak, 2007 flu outbreak, all the way back to the first strain of flu(dont ask me when that was, I have no clue), as flu does not refer to this particular strain. Moreover, the commonn flu claims hundreds of thousands of lives every year, so ANY flu strain could be considered a pandemic. The only thing that makes this one so dangerous is the fact that it was previously thought to exist only in pigs, therfore no vaccine was created to combat it in humans.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Where to report new cases

Is there a place to report new cases, or do we just sit back and wait for it to work its way through the system. I'm referring to http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/042909kvue_Lucy_Reed-cb.26f0453.html (Austin, TX school closed because of probable case) Victor Engel (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table for the standards we use. Rmhermen (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO Phase 5 - Not a Pandemic

WHO Phase 5 does not represent a Pandemic, but a likely Pandemic.

Phase 5 is characterized by human-to-human spread of the virus into at least two countries in one WHO region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short. -[3]

The UN's World Health Organization has raised the alert over swine flu to level five - one short of a full-blown global epidemic, or pandemic. -[4]

Thus I shall be removing erroneous references describing the current WHO classification as a Pandemic. Please comment as appropriate. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your WHO reference. It suggests, visually, that the so-called "phases 5/6" are in fact "pandemic". It's right there on the image. It's even circled! Need more? The entire ranking scheme is titled "pandemic influenza phases". Phase 1, phase 6, it's all a pandemic to them. Or so it would appear. (I can't even discern a substantive difference between phase 6 and 5.)

Even the CDC's hurricane-style rating system is all pandemic. A feeble CDC class 1 pandemic is, as far as I can tell, always running. Everywhere. All the time. 24/7 for the last 10,000 years. Are you running screaming for the exit yet?

But I still support your mission of removing every last trace of pandemic from this article: it is abundantly clear that the very word "pandemic" is being intensely abused by almost everyone involved in this media and medical fiasco. Up until a week ago, you ask a random person on the street about "pandemic", and you would get a description of mass death and human suffering on unimaginable scales. Well, I guess we are all wrong on that count, aren't we? It's really just the system state of a medical bureaucracy. Feh! The news media has an excuse for propagating this nonsense -- they have money to make. I suggest that Wikipedia rise above it all, WP:NOR et al be damned when there are massive, blatant, NPOV violations in the very sources used to make up this article. mdf (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion over what the WHO alert scale is actually about. Having worked in developing software for managing pandemics within the British NHS, I've done plenty of extended reading to familiarise myself with national and international procedures regarding pandemic continuity planning.

The WHO system is an 'alert scale'. It represents the planning stages to be utilised in individual country's continuity plans for dealing with a pandemic. As the stage increases, each country is expected to adopt a different set of procedures relevant to that stage of a pandemic. However, the confusion therein lies in the fact that WHO clarification includes planning for a pandemic. WHO Phase 5 refers to an 'imminent pandemic'. It is assumed, at this stage, that a pandemic is about to occur and that countries should plan as though one were inevitable. However, it does not represent an actual, on-going pandemic.

You have to bear in mind that the WHO's scale is not for general consumption. It is aimed at informing branches of national governments which measures of their comprehensive (or otherwise) plans they should be enacting at any given moment. Notice how the text is written and who the intended audience is.

The WHO, confusingly, uses the term 'pandemic' in many different contexts. The outbreak itself is not labelled as a pandemic, but the procedures being enacted, and the status assigned to them, are those of a pandemic (literally: pertaining to a future pandemic). Phase 5 refers to a localised series of community level outbreaks. By its very nature, a localised outbreak cannot be a pandemic. It would be a contradiction.

Addendum: "An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness." [5]

"The World Health Organization has raised its alert to level five - one short of a full-blown pandemic." -[6]

Both the WHO and the BBC refer to Stage 5 of the plan (that image aside) as an epidemic leading up to a pandemic, not otherwise.

For the record, text is always more authoritative than an associated 'dumbed down' image. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the confusion comes from the WHO itself. One reason is that the scale is named the 'WHO PANDEMIC ALERT' scale. Once people see the words 'pandmic alert' they think were in one even though only the 6th stage is the actual pandemic. The second reason is word choice. In the US our goverment leaders traditionally avoid the 'Recession' word so much that when they acutally say it: its a big deal. In contrast the WHO director is extremely open (perhaps too open) in refering to 'a pandemic' or 'pandemic flu' though if you read the words carefully she never calls the current H1N1 outbreak a pandemic or refers to 'the pandemic'. Perhaps the problem is the WHO director isn't a politican, we aren't used to people talking openly. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between 5 and 6 on the WHO scale is that someone else get sick in another WHO region. If that hasn't happened yet, it probably will by the time I click on "save page". This entire alert/warning/whatever system makes a mockery of what most people think of as a "pandemic". Maybe it should have been called "WHO International Medical Clusterfuck Index"? mdf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO system is "not for general consumption", then is it appropriate to refer to it in a general encyclopedia re: naming the article? mdf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not only is it appropriate, the chart is as authoritative as the WHO itself. There are other charts (the U.S. is still at Stage 0 http://www.pandemicflu.gov/ http://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/federal/fedresponsestages.html), but only one pertinent global bureaucracy. kencf0618 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we record things that are said by notable people, but not all things that are said are relevant to people everywhere. People should read press statements and wikipedia with salt. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The devil's in the details —there's always some context to be considered. kencf0618 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But we don't record notable things by record people umm...... BFritzen (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Discussion of how WP:NPOV governs article content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some persons think that the flu pandemic is a lie and that the frequency of deaths during this period is the normal frequency of people who die of pneumonia. I do not think so, but I also consider that we should give a place for conspiracy theories if we want to present the multiple points of view of this outbreak.--Fixvon (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Multiple points of view is diffrent than NPOV. Its also not what we do here. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. Per neutral point of view policy we present the mainstream view. At present none of these very odd alternative ideas have achieved any prominence, so per WP:UNDUE it would be wrong to include them in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I find it a bit unusual that what would otherwise be called a null hypothesis is now referred to as a "conspiracy theory"! mdf (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Hypothesizing a vast media and governmental conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Sometimes people pride themselves on knowing concepts and being able to wiki-link those into an argument. Sadly, that ability does not turn straw into debate gold; nor does not get you laid. -sigh --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Who said it did? Regardless, the baseline model is that all these deaths are unremarkable. mdf (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Other than the fact that all of the deaths have occurred in people under 50, mostly young, otherwise healthy adults? Sbw01f (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC) And that a new virus has been isolated from the dead? 164.107.200.228 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Occam's Razor ViridaeTalk 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Exaggeration in words

In the intro someone put many schools closed and I changed it to a few. Then it was changed to numerous schools, then I changed it what I counted from the references to be 18. What do you think is the right thing to do? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently 1 in NYC and one in Onondaga County (Central New York State). That is all I know of in NYS. I am probably wrong, there could be more. BFritzen (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alarmism in "Genetics and Effects"

The caption to the pig image says "Pigs can harbor influenza viruses adapted to humans and others adapted to birds, allowing the viruses to exchange genes and create a pandemic strain."

The last five words of that sentence are unnecessary, speculative and alarmist. 58.165.254.91 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there is no such thing as a "pandemic strain." There are just strains. Good, fix it, if you would. BFritzen (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the same can be said about humans. We too can (and in this case perhaps did) harbor influenza viruses adapted to other animals, and let them exchange genes. This new strain has not been found in swine, and it contains genes from 3 strains not found in swine in North America. What does that suggest? That one or more humans traveled internationally, picked up several different flu viruses, and brewed up this new strain. That would make this a new human influenza. --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Request image change => WP:GL Yug (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage people to go to PubMed [7] and enter the quoted phrase "pandemic strain" into the query box. I understand that for the most part a flu strain isn't inherently "pandemic", because this is primarily a historical description of the public's lack of immunity - but it is still a useful idea, implying certain historical and ecological features. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but in this context, it is alarmist because, scientifically speaking (this is an encyclopedia) there is no "pandemic strain."BFritzen (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican President shuts down nation & economy for a week

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53N22820090430

Just out. rootology (C)(T) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador declares state of exception because of swine flu

President Correa issued today the order, even though there are no possible cases there. Source in Spanish, from La Hora--Fryant (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan name?

I hear Japan was calling it the 'North American Flu' or something. Should they be at the top as an alternate name with the others? Lemniwinks (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't list all the names people call it, only the most common ones to help people find the article and avoid confusion. Actually I think the four names there is too many already. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create a bunch of redirects though. That way, everyone who wants to find this article can. hmwithτ 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect talk page should contain an explanation, otherwise it may be deleted at WP:RFD, if the term isn't in this article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be consensus to delete a redirect to this article based on a noncontroversial alternative name. A talk page clarification would help though. hmwithτ 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Panic vs Facts

Shouldn't this article include (mayhap I have yet to see it) the normal death toll of influenza? From WHO:

In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections. Hospitalization and deaths mainly occur in high-risk groups (elderly, chronically ill). Although difficult to assess, these annual epidemics are thought to result in between three and five million cases of severe illness and between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. Most deaths currently associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among the elderly over 65 years of age.

So, 250 000/ 365 = 685 500 000/ 365 = 1370. So, according to statistics, between 685 to 1,370 people die from influenza every day.... is this really all that different. Shouldn't we put forth the "disclaimer" that strains of influenza cause X amount of deaths every year/ or day at the top of the article in order to put this into perspective? BFritzen (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you seems to be right for now. Now, my grand mother should be a little affraid by the common flu, and not by this far-away swine flu. I noticed that a noticeable part of 'suspected cases' then switch to 'no, it was nothing'. It seems that the 'suspected cases' also include people who got the common flu in mexico.

The only thing we are currently sure is that this is a new strain. We can't say yet if this strain is contagious, or very virulent (deathly), etc. since we don't know the number of people affected. That may be 10.000, with 7.000 asymptomatic, 3000 with symptomes, and 150 death. If such, then that's almost a common flu. Medics are worry, but frankly, we haven't yet enough data to say 'this is dangerous'. We don't know, and this is the terrible side of the story, currently. Yug (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea!--201.153.40.28 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but we don't do disclamers. We don't engage in sensationlism; but we don't purposly try to stop it from happening elsewhere. Just write a good informational article and let the panic blow over. People will wake up next week and realize they're not dead. I got killed by the ozone hole, killer bees, global warming, sars, bird flu, Miley Cyrus, monkey pox, and watching that video tape of the Ring.... each time I got better. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We know it is both contagious and virulent, and since it is a new strain, it will most probably infect a large proportion of the world's population. There is no reason to panic, but there is reason for serious concern. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not any more or less virulent and contagious as the "regular" flu. There is no way of knowing that right now.BFritzen (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually since its flu the infection part may well become unverifiable or may not even be relevant. Most people that have mild flu never even know it, mistake it for something else, or don't seek medical treatment. The WHO has already stated on swine flu that the majority of the people infected recovered without medical treatment. Unless CDC or WHO releases estimates the actual number of infected (and therefore the mortality rate) will likely be unknown.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a disclaimer per se but I did include the WHO quote to give unbiased perspective, just straight forward. I "block text"ed it in order to have it stand out a bit, but I think that it only adds to what we are trying to accomplish. Reading those first paragraphs (as a current event) may prove to be unintentional sensationalism (and only because it is current). I think the paragraph I added puts perspective. Oh and to continue on your train of thought: do we pile the bodies next to all the AIDS and SARS victims? I remember when AIDS was first talked about and the sensationalism that made us think bodies would be lining the street, "The new Black Plague" they called it. (I am not making fun of the victims just our ability to sensationalize.) BFritzen (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Prior influenza season section has already had these statistics for a number of days, and supplies context effectively as the first section. Wikipedia articles make little allowance for the level of excitement or firmness of opinion in readers. (Editors are another matter…) Intros need to concisely include the significance of the topic, which currently in this case comes from the warnings of major health authorities, the actions of various countries, and the wide media coverage. --Zigger «º» 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe move those stats up then. It is relevant to an article including the term FLU (as short for influenza). Wiki does make little allowance for excitement and therefore this tempers said excitement.BFritzen (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did move them and it reads better, flows nicely. BFritzen (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This detailed background quote seems too large for the intro, mispositioned, and now no longer covered in the initial section. Can you it summarise it and place it closer to the facts that you think need the context? (I have no idea which part of the intro, if any, has people so concerned.) --Zigger «º» 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Chan quote, as it's about "a pandemic", and so not specific enough for this intro. The quote being deliberately alarmist but out of context also wasn't good. It may have a place elsewhere in this or another article. Was that the concerning part of the intro for others? --Zigger «º» 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the background flu data from the intro to the first section again. --Zigger «º» 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines you need consensus. I understand that you think this has to do with NPOV. It is the point of Wiki to provide such information as users need. There is no reason to edit my contributions. It is NPOV balance, which is acceptable. Also, the info that you reverted isn't attributed to WHO in article, rather the only mention is of the CDC. If you don't like that quotes are block texted, then change that, but you can't do a revert and blank contributions made by others. I would revert this had you done it to someone else. There is no reason not to include global statistics on influenza. Further, the CDC paragraph reads better without the WHO reference in it. BFritzen (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I couldn't copy-edit the quote because those who raised the issues in this talk-section had not explained what it was in the intro that concerned them. I asked & waited. I made an assumption (the out-of-context Chan quote) and checked here and waited. I reverted your changes and explained (poorly) on your talk page that I removed the Chan quote to restore "impartial tone", and I felt that this was a better approach than "balance". Again, what is it about the intro that you feel requires balancing data in that location? --Zigger «º» 12:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have only skimmed this section of the talk page? There is no problem with the content and adding information on Influenza as it impacts the world adds balance to the article. Since this is a current event, the introduction by itself leads to unintentional sensationalism. We don't want that. I have no problem with the Chan quote being changed. But my addition is completely relevant to this article. To have it included in the "Prior year" section really doesn't make sense because A) it is an annual statistic, B) it is from the WHO and not the CDC though that section only refers to the CDC, and C) The "Prior" section reads better without that aside. The section is about the previous flu season (in the USA) and nothing else. If you have an objection to part of an article, you probably should start a new topic and ask if it should be nixed. As such, I included this new topic with the idea of adding for balance. In this case, other users agreed because given the current context (it is a current event) it should be included. Further, the purpose of wikipedia is to inform, not alarm. These are the reasons for inclusion fo the quote from the WHO. Taken in context of the current situation, the mention of this particular strain of flu seizing headlines, wikipedia's popularity, and people's wish to be informed, the paragraph about annual flu statistics is included to balance that of the 1st paragraphs in the introduction. Read by themselves, they reiterate much of the media hype, even though factually based. They state simple facts as does my contribution. BFritzen (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the quote to the middle of the introduction and (right after the explanation that it is a new virus). So it is sort here is the new virus. Here is what the old virus does. We don't know what the new virus does and here is what is going on. I think it helps the readability. Hdstubbs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

All this panic is senseless.Its far more likely to gain in alottery, than to die of this flu.Agre22 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

New map

See "Alaska included as confirmed death?" for relevent discussion. I will begin working on a new map now, seeing as there were no objections. I will post the finished product in a new section before adding it to the article.Drew R. Smith (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it an infected county map? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the map is infected. ;-P BFritzen (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the map just supposed to indicate the country? I mean, if you're going to remove Alaska, will you also remove Montana? What abut Siberia and Svalbard? And what about New Zealand, are we sure the confirmed cases are on both the North and the South Island? --Cessator (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The confirmed cases in NZ are 4 or 11 students (depending on what you mean by confirmed) from the same school and therefore all in Auckland, part of a group that visited Mexico recently together. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, so if one was going to remove Alaska, then one should also remove the South Island. And then one should also change a lot of other things. Best to leave it alone on the world map, I say. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the South Island cf the North Island is comparable to Alaska cf the rest of the continential US Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Alaska vs. the lower 48 states is similar to North Island Vs. South Island, in both cases you are showing the disease throughout non-contiguous areas that makes it look like a contiguous zone. On the other hand, I think the best analogy is if the disease hits France do we show French Guiana on the infected area of the map. If your answer to the question is negative, than you should in all consistency support removing Alaska from the map. I support removing South Island, Alaska and any other non-contiguous area, including excluding Corsica if France does get effected. I mean, the Free Corsica movement does have more sway that Free Alask. Along the same lines if Angola is infected, remove Cabinda. However, if Georgia is infected, keep in Abkazia and South Ossetia. The question is not, are the areas sufficiently politically district, but does showing them create a false sense of inclusion. For the same reason do not include the area around Kalingrad if Russia is infected unless there is an infection there, and reversably if there is an infection there do not highlight the rest of Russia. It may not be the best rule, but I think it will work in all cases.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If we just invade Canada or just 'bus some ill people up to Vancover for medical treatment' then we could bridge that unsightly gap. Or we could just accept that sometimes we all get blamed for a few bad apples. If the world map bothers you so much, just look at the North American one. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The world map doesn't bother me. I'm saying, let's not remove parts of countries. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the point is moot. The map turned out to be a pain in the arse, and I eventually gave up. What I was going to do is divide the largest countries i.e. america, russia, and china, along pre-existing political boundaries to make it a little easier. For the U.S. that would have been every state getting its own infection status. Not sure how russia and china would have worked, dont know the boundaries there. But as I said, it's a moot point, and I couldn't even get america to work that way. I was trying to modify the map using the window program paint, but the states boundaries are just too complex for that. maybe someone with some programming knowledge could giv it a more "sophisticated" attempt.Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You could ask the guys updating the US map how they do it... (File:H1N1 USA Map.svg) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Given this article's global focus, the granularity of the map is ipso facto national. As the epidemic continues, smaller political units shall receive their own articles, subsections, and maps. There are already several maps down to the state/province and county level. (How often have you seen a map of the states of Mexico, or the provinces of Spain?) If the epidemic gets really bad, I suppose we'll have large-scale maps with the granularity of ZIP Codes. kencf0618 (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after that the "pig flu google map" app will come out for the Iphone. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I fully expect people to twitter their deaths. kencf0618 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Although technically not a strain of swine influenza..."

The second sentence of the lead currently reads that the outbreak is not swine flu, but it is my understanding that in fact the flu is a mixture of several virii viruses and is at least partially swine. Is this correct and if so should this sentence be modified? Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. [[8]] --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ECDC is calling it Novel Influenza A(H1N1), which is more accurate than anything else I have heard.BFritzen (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question though. One issue is what the page should be named; that has been discussed ad nauseum. The second question is whether it is correct to say that the outbreak is not swine flu, when in fact it partially is (as I understand it, obviously I'm no expert as I can't even pluralize 'virus' correctly). Oren0 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That does answer it. It is really a new strain of H1N1 (which is found in every source we seem to be using.) It is also novel (read: new/ different) and it is influenza. This is very important if you think you are getting the right vaccine! Vaccines will be labeled with the strain they are used to fight. BFritzen (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the second question: I've seen no source that says it is NOT connected to swine in any way. My understanding is that these livestock viruses live in animals then infect humans. It is still the same strain of virus while its in the new host, until it makes some change that then allows it to pass from human to human. That is when it becomes a new strain of virus. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that. The strain is a reassortment of human, avian, and swine strains, and the strain has not been isolated in swine anywhere in the world. Nor has the world animal surveillance network detected any surge in influenza in swine. Swine influenza is influenza endemic in swine, and this strain is not swine influenza. Many people call this strain "swine flu" but it is increasingly apparent that the name is a major source of misunderstanding (countries proposing to slaughter all pigs, countries banning import of pork meat, etc.) and increasingly other names are in use. --Una Smith (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your OR. Please don't add such OR again particularly when it isn't supported by the rest of the article which states that some researchers consider is a strain of swine influenza and this is sourced to a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To help allay concerns about the naming in the intro, I've copied the sentence mentioning the name is disputed and then mentioned the other names. I think trying to explain the controversy in the intro will be too much but anyone who thinks they can improve it in non ORry ways are welcome Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR; swine influenza is defined (eg, in Merck Veterinary Manual) as influenza endemic in swine. This strain not only is not endemic in swine, it is not known in swine. --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As that source says Merck Veterinary Manual entry on Swine Influenza "Swine influenza is an acute, highly contagious, respiratory disease that results from infection with type A influenza virus."; I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That quote applies to infected pigs, not infected humans. Discussion of infection in humans is mentioned in parentheses. What I am trying to say is simple: this new strain apparently is not swine influenza, but human influenza derived from human, avian, and swine influenza strains. It was called swine flu at first because it was discovered with tests designed to detect swine flu, but as soon as its genome was sequenced it was evident that this new strain is not a swine flu. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean removal of already documented material. (I believe you are right) but that is not how Wiki works. Further, these are common names and should stay simply because it allows others to understand the etymology of the terms. Further, I think you have something important to add, please do and leave other work untouched until such a time as it is completely (scientifically) refuted. Also, please cite your source. BFritzen (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update the statistics for New Zealand...

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146

16 confirmed. A further 104 are suspected cases with another 111 in quarantine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A note on the 16 'confirmed' cases. 3 people in NZ have tested positive for swine flu. Another 13 have tested positive for influenza type A, and have been in and infected area (Mexico) or have been in close contact with a confirmed or probable case. These are often referred to as having swine flu, but have never had a definitive test (only influenza type A).

I think for the purposes of the table, it should use the NZ ministry of health statistics of 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 63 suspected ,or perhaps 76 probable and suspected in the ‘other suspected’ column of the table.

The following link may be more authoritative that news websites.

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/mexican-swine-influenza-update-fourteen-300409?Open —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.147.198 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The new website has the exact same information. It has been updated... 16 confirmed, 111 are probable and 121 are suspected.

Update 15 is now showing 127 cases = 3 confirmed, 13 probable, 111 suspected. The table has been reformatted to be less confusing. Of these 121 are in voluntary quarantine. If I am reading the table correctly, 6 suspected cases in the canterbury area are not in quarantine, presumably because quarantine is voluntary and some people are idiots.130.217.240.32 (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um the TVNZ site is rather confused and should be ignored completely (although it doesn't say there are 111 probable but 16 confirmed or probable). There are 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 111 suspected. While I'm normally reluctant to use primary sources, in this case it requires no intepretation or is there a risk of us getting it wrong so it's the best solution. To be fair, the MOH is partly responsbile for the confusion, they didn't initially differentiate between probable and confirmed in their reports but they do now Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a confusion in the news reports on the number of cases in New Zealand between suspected cases of Mexican Swine flu, and people in quarantine. Many of those in quarantine in New Zealand are not ill with any kind of influenza. Quite a few have simply been in close contact with others who have suspicious influenza and are taking Tamiflu and are in voluntary isolation as a precautionary measure. New Zealand is quarantining much more aggressively than most countries. Hawthorn (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

world view

Why is a world view important?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.227.140 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm... because we live in the world? It is a world encyclopedia? BFritzen (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The section with the Globalize template should probably have a northern hemisphere view rather than global, as that flu season is the subject. Using information mainly about the USA is less useful than regional or Mexican information, as the currently understood original infections and early clusters were in Mexico. The USA statistics are probably indicative so are better than nothing. --Zigger «º» 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that.BFritzen (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If World Health Organisation has declared it a Global pandemic risk, I think World view is important. As you can see on this talk page, some governments already made mistake of declaring "they are safe from it" without any scientific reason. Ilgaz (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nixing WHO Flu Statistics in Intro

I included this and even asked opinion in Facts Vs Fears (or whatever I called it.) Does anyone think this should be removed, kept, or edited? BFritzen (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to removing it from the intro. It doesn't seem that imnportant in the grand scheme of things Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as grand scheme goes that discussion is in Panic v Facts. We have tidied it up a bit in order to make the intro better, more concise. A removal of it occurred without consensus and I wanted to know if anyone had a direct reason what this should be removed due to "unintentional sensationalism." (Again, see Panic v Facts in the discussion page.) BFritzen (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek

el:Νέος ιός γρίπης —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swineinfluenza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

protection

Not being able to edit the article makes me feel alienated from Wikipedia. Better accept the risk of a few trolls messing up rather than alienate your users. Swineinfluenza (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any changes in particular you would like to make? I would be happy to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Response

Is the response to this by the media something we should consider adding as a new section to the article? The media is giving this a lot press and I think that it might be something worth mentioning. I don't know if there are sources that we can use on the matter, but it's something to look at. My reason being that given the speed at which information can be disseminated in today's world essentially allows for almost everyone to know everything instantly. I think there could be a focus on whether the media is helpful or hurtful (spreading information or spreading panic) and especially its impact on helping people/organizations/governments coordinate their efforts so that the spread can be minimized. I'm having a bit of trouble articulating exactly what I'm thinking, but I think that you get the idea. The media will likely end up playing a big role in this (especially if this turns into a full blown pandemic) so I think that we should give some sort of mention to it here. What do you guys think? Pharmaediting11 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have 'media reaction to' articles on other major topics, namely recent Presidential and National Elections. However you may have trouble getting enough sources for a good article if your trying to record assessments of the media response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but there has to be something out there that is usable per WP guidelines. The media can play a huge role in inciting panic or keeping peace. And if riots happened then I think we would end up with a HUGE section with analysis on the media response. But that's something different for a different time. So far this is the closest thing to a usable source [9]. I have another one also, but it's a blog and I don't think it's usable. I'm putting it up to see what you guys think though [10].Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get some sources & draft up a section. hmwithτ 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done 2009 swine flu outbreak#Media response. Feel free to suggest/make any changes, but I feel like it's a good start. hmwithτ 17:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I only skimmed the source quickly just to ensure it wasen't conspiracy bunk. Whoever you are quoteing needs to be named in the article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Farms closer to La Gloria?

The Smithfield/Granjas Carroll operation mentioned in the press is annotated in Google Earth, and clearly visible as a large number of CAFOs near Perote, Veracruz[11], but it is five towns north of La Gloria, Veracruz. There is a CAFO one town west of La Gloria with an obvious sewage lagoon.[12] Interestingly, there is another group of somewhat similar buildings even closer to La Gloria, but these have no sewage lagoon.[13] Since even the Michigan Sierra Club describes CAFOs with drainage tiles running into local streams, it is interesting that these buildings seem to have a wash leading into a dry riverbed which I think flows past La Gloria. Has anyone spotted mention of these closer farms in the Mexican press? Mike Serfas (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed the same thing in Google Maps. Hopefully this will be discussed in the press soon - I haven't seen anything about it so far. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No but I have seen the Smithfield mention over and over again. Blaming the American always plays better in the Mexican press. Has anyone seen anything on where patient zeros's parent/ family worked> --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NM per this: "Lezana said that none of Édgar's relatives worked near or at the area's industrial hog farms, and that tests of pigs so far have not shown any signs of the virus." --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That same source says though many of the LaGloria residents blame the open pits and sweage runoff but doctors disagree: "Influenza in pigs is a respiratory disease, so there is much less risk associated with pig waste," --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think part of it is that people want to blame the biggest person, so that future law suits have the best chance of getting money. Since Smithfield Farms is the biggest, their operations will be targetted. You won't get any money from suing Javier Hernandez who operates one small farm with 50 pigs. Better to go after the multi-nationals. Beyond this, I think any speculation about the disease originating with pigs is not fully documented at this point.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sensationalism

The purpose of Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles, not news articles. I would say IMHO that the news articles referenced are not verifiable information, but fluid information that is likely to change. They are written with less stringent controls as would be published, peer-reviewed articles. A better place for all of this fluid and dynamically and increasingly "speculative" info should be placed in Wikinews, and not Wikipedia. We should be posting only verifiable information, which would include laboratory-confirmed cases and confirmed cause of death due to swine flu. Other information is just not encyclopedic. Flipper9 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) — Flipper9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good point. There is some balance here and since info is so new and constantly updated/ evolving, it is very difficult to nail things down, especially since the media is sensationalizing things. Many people are honestly putting up what they consider to be facts and we may find to be erroneous in hindsight. BFritzen (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear about the inappropriate tag I added to the main article: all of the "suspected cases", "probable cases" and "probable deaths" are unverifiable information. Just because a news article says it, that is more speculative information and has no basic in something that can be verified. For example, news articles are regularly updated, retracted, and sometimes based on the flimsiest of evidence. The information gleaned from the popular press IMHO is not verifiable in the strictest sense. Yes; you can lookup the article and see that some guy at a news organization wrote it, but it's not verifiable by any authority. The only verifiable information is confirmed cases of infection and confirmed cases of death. The other columns of possible or probable cases and deaths is not something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article; but in a dynamically updated news article or site, hence why that unverifiable information should be placed in Wikinews or some other wiki site. Flipper9 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that we can't verify that "probable deaths" are actually confirmed, that's not our job. Here we can report that the deaths are considered probable by "reliable and published sources". Such sources include the likes of BBC, CNN etc, as is supported by the vast number of wikipedia articles that use these sources in citations. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it does matter. We are supposed to include verifiable information in articles in Wikipedia. We should be sourcing the best evidence available; which IMHO is not a vast array of speculative news articles from the popular press. We should be sourcing verifiable information from the CDC, WHO, and various other organizations which are charged with obtaining and publishing this information. The popular press just posts whatever they want on their websites, whether it be unsourced or hearsay...and that shouldn't be the basis of posting information to Wikipedia. Many news stories call a probable case as gleaned from an email sent by somebody at a hospital to someone else. It's not verifiable, and shouldn't be included in the article. Flipper9 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See Reliable_sources#News_organizations. Of course data cited by news sources deemed to be mere roumours can be removed, but it is established on wikipedia that reputable news organisations are reliable sources. It has been suggested here many times to only use WHO figures, but it is always decided not to beause they do not reflect the current situation accurately due to delay. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can be reliable and more up to date if they are porting verifiable facts such as confirmed cases or confirmed deaths. But the information given on unconfirmed cases, suspected cases, and unconfirmed deaths, be definition, is not verifiable. That information must be removed. It is not sourced in the strictest sense as nobody knows if it's truth or not. Someone says we have unverifiable information; how is that sourced? It's not. It may be said in a news article, but it's printed as unverifiable and is thus not verifiable. Flipper9 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here: we are reporting the verifiable fact that these unverified cases exisit. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is an unverifiable fact? There is no such thing. It's hearsay, original research, unpublished information (and IMHO just because it's said in the news doesn't make it published). It has no place here in Wikipedia. And reporting the news is not the job of Wikipedia...that's Wikinews' job. Flipper9 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way: 2 years from now, after the infection is over-with, we all have immunity to the virus strain, the yearly flu vaccine includes this virus...etc...everything has settled down...what would this article look like? Would it include "probable" or "possible" cases in the table? No; we would be sourcing the article from published articles from peer-reviewed literature, from the WHO, from the CDC, and other major health organizations. We wouldn't be sourcing hearsay from the popular press, unless they were just parroting what the major health organizations were saying. Flipper9 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

When the WHO and peer-reviewed literature have caught up with the actual facts now as reported in other reliable news sources, then they can be cited in preference. Until then we have to use the most accurate and up-to-date sources available, which tend to be trusted media organisations (often quoting WHO or other government officals). --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A "suspected case", "unconfirmed case", or "unconfirmed death" will never catch up. They are unverifiable information and have no place in this article. If a news organization has an update from the WHO or CDC (or other health organization) that hasn't be published yet, then include it. If some guy on some news network heard that somebody has the sniffles, it's not verifiable even though it's published and can be referenced. Flipper9 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pontificalibus, this arcicle conforms to wikipolicy, which is relying onr reliable news sources.

RE: Think of it this way: 2 years from now, after the infection is over-with, we all have immunity to the virus strain, the yearly flu vaccine includes this virus...etc...everything has settled down...what would this article look like? Would it include "probable" or "possible" cases in the table? No; we would be sourcing the article from published articles from peer-reviewed literature, from the WHO, from the CDC, and other major health organizations.

This is immaterial, since we are living in 2009, not 2011. By 2011 this article will be radically different. the sources that you are say this article should have, don't exist yet, until they do, we will rely on reliable media sources. Ikip (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that referencing news organizations for the latest verifiable information follows the wikipolocy, in that case you are writing about verifiable information. However, including unverifiable informatino just because CNN or the BBC reports it is contrary to the rule that the content must be verifiable. A suspected or unverified case is just that, not verifiable. Flipper9 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. 76.10.155.49 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's policy on verifiable information. We require only that information be verified as coming from reputable sources (such as a news agency). We have never required "verification" that the facts being put forward are true, final, or indisputable. Since the existence of suspected cases can be verified in many reputable sources, that is sufficient for inclusion. The ultimate dispostion of those cases is irrelevant for the purposes of "verification" as the term is used in Wikipedia editing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since 206 editors have worked on Template:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table, listing the presummed cases, and you are the first editor to bring this up, I don't think there is any conensus for change. Ikip (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The table at the top of the page is a bit much as it stands now; I would be in favor of relegating all mentions of "possible/probable/suspected cases" to the article text, only having CDC-confirmed deaths/cases in the table. We could have a single section on states which have unconfirmed cases. To me this is a good way to reduce clutter and keep the article length down. The suspected cases may be notable and verifiable, but it seems a bit much to me to have them in the table.-RunningOnBrains 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Posted to wrong talk page, sorry.-RunningOnBrains 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing wikipolicy itself, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am only trying to uphold what Wikipedia is about, even though I might be the only one talking about it. Hence, why I have just added the tag to the article and wanted to bring up a discussion, and didn't just go removing the unverifiable information from the article itself. I am thinking about just removing the unverifiable, because it is unverifiable and against wikipolicy, but wanted to give folks a change to talk about it. I know people have put a lot of hard work into this article, but unverifiable information has no place here. Go place that info in Wikinews or some other wiki. Flipper9 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to find another phrase than "unverifiable information". These references are verified through news organization, and the folks at the template article go to pains to remove unsourced information. Nothing in those tables is against wikipolicy, you haven't quoted any wikipolicy yet. Edits begat edits, so maybe if I stop responding, this section will go away. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Flipper, While, I think we all agree with what you are saying, there already was a tag that this article refers to a "Current Event" and as such, the article can change rapidly. I think that is enough of a statement to cover what you two are disputing. Further, DON"T EDIT WAR (Not aimed at FLIPER per se) But I could see one brewing. BFritzen (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the sourced information is hearsay. The suspected cases come from unreliable emails, first-hand discussions with the public, and are not reliable information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources

a lot of the news agencies that are sourced for the flu cases are sourced in other articles (unrelated to the flu outbreak) and accepted as reputable sources, i would think for us to decide when an otherwise reputable source is being sensationalist and when they are reporting facts would be original research Default.XBE (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While a popular news article (which all of the "suspected" and "unconfirmed" numbers are referenced to) can be reliable, it's only reliable when they are reporting news from an authority in the subject. The purpose of the popular news is to generate articles that get people to read their articles, so they impart sensationalism to get people to read them. They include hearsay, unchecked "facts", and information that is not verifiable. You cannot verify that someone has the swine flu disease (which this article is about) if the data is unverified, i.e. someone thinks that someone has the disease. Suspected cases are not notable, and do not fulfill this criterion for inclusion into Wikipedia. Flipper9 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to do this. Start a topic on a specific use of a reference (ie Source A claims X amt of deaths, WHO differs." Because, some of the info is changing so fast that as soon as it is written it can become unreliable. I agree about news sources with "What bleeds, leads" being inappropriate for encyclopedic knowledge. AND of course, any statements of such should be well verified and peer reviewed. Look at it this way: We are trying to record history as it is happening. We are going to get stuff wrong. It doesn't mean it can't be corrected. I just think we need to be circumspect about this and focus on one instance at a time. Text sucks at conveying emotion, so it would be best to look for alternate peer reviewed sources that verify the inaccuracies. This shouldn't e hard to do. BFritzen (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mixing two issues here. 1. Suspected or Unconfirmed cases are not noteworthy for this article. 2. References to news articles do not IMHO rise to the level of respected, sourced information. If a news source has facts about verified infections or verified deaths due to swine flu, then that's fine. If a news source reports number of people who might possibly have an infection, or died and we just aren't sure why, then that doesn't rise to the level of noteability and verifiability for the level that Wikipedia must achieve to be considered an encyclopedia. Either way, the suspected and unverified information in the table on this article (and all related country articles) should and must be removed. Flipper9 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just want you to be more specific. There are hundreds of references in this article. What ones and where in the article? It will take considerable time, because if it is CNN or BBC but the news references a verifiable source.... I am in favor of PRIMARY sources only. I don't have a problem with it, I just think it will be a monumental task. BFritzen (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about the suspected cases being impossible to verify. That is like saying that it is impossible to verify that people suspect OJ Simpson committed murder when he wasn't convicted. The verification of the suspicion is the news article that identifies the suspicion. I don't think that having suspected cases is against wikipedia policy at all. It is not impossible to verify that they are suspected. We are using the most reliable source (the news media)available at this time. If you want up the level of verification in the table by using the most reliable source about current suspected cases then I think that is correct, just as we do any piece of information in Wikipedia.

And in the future, the article on the issue, will almost certainly have information regarding the number suspected cases and the perception of suspected cases and how that influenced the event. While, we can't see how it will influence this event, we can (and should) include that the suspected cases exist. Hdstubbs (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the values of zero that are unverifiable and unreferenced? (This comment could probably be on the table's talk page, but it seems appropriate in this thread.) --Zigger «º» 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Zeros are a common value of a no known cases. You can't easily ref that you don't know something. WP knows this and generally accepts 0 without refrences. The refrenced zeros in the US table are for when a case comes back as negative and is sourced. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

CDC rolling out test kits to US state health agencies - Mexico just now has testing capability

Per todays webcast: Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Rich Besser, says they have rolled out test kits to NewYork and Califonia: They expect to be able to roll out testing kits to other states on Monday. Prior, testing was only avaliable at CDC headquaters in Atlanta. The new kits are expected to be able to speed up the testing process. Dr Besser also said that Mexico has just now been able to do their own testing. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Swine Flu Resource" Reference

Leads to American Idol's finalist Adam Lamebert's fan site. Another reason behind Wikipedia being nothing more than a synonym for retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.74.165 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for pointing that out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 (gah!) It's probably vandalism. I removed the link. Thank you for the heads up. hmwithτ 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Manual archiving time?

The page is getting awfully long again. I know there is a bot that does this, but should we manually archive some in the meantime, like we did before? hmwithτ 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probibly a good idea. Thanks--Ken Durham (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I second if you are referring to the talk page.BFritzen (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton has archived the page. Thanks! hmwithτ 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Twitter belong in Media Response???

Since Twitter is a Social Networking/ Micro Blogging Site, does can response on Twitter be considered as Media Response as opposed the Public Response?

I think that there should be a clear line between Media Response and Public response, with Media reponse being limited to the response of the professional journalists, as opposed to reponse of amateur journalists/general public, which should be considered public reponse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanhee920 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only possible mention of twitter that I feel is applicable should be the CDCs use of it; which again is not a media response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it is pretty superfluous information that adds nothing to the article. magnius (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows the media's affect on the public. I wrote the section. Feel free to delete it. :) hmwithτ 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Ken Durham (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted, although should a Public Response section be created, I think this would be well worth adding.Chanhee920 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if the public response is extremely notable. If its only somewhat notable (egyptians make baconbits) it should go onto the 'by country' page. We don't need 192 entries of people took extra day off work. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources. I'd say the public response is notable. hmwithτ 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen at least three articles about twitter's uses in this outbreak. This has mostly focused on the use of twitter by CDC, CNN, and other reliable agencies using it to get information out, and also how this reliable information is often lost in the mass of extremely unreliable information. Do you think that counts as relevant? Here are the links: http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/25/swine_flu_twitters_power_to_misinform

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5236447/Swine-flu-Twitter-used-to-spread-news-around-world.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/27/swine.flu.twitter/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is not precise.

In the cases by country table, It is shown 159 confirmed cases in México., That is very far from the official number.

that number 195 is not supported by the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6189805.ece

"The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159"

Note the difference than "suspected" than "confirmed"

The official number is provided by WHO, and Mexico has 26 confirmed

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_04_29/en/index.html

"29 April 2009 -- The situation continues to evolve rapidly. As of 18:00 GMT, 29 April 2009, nine countries have officially reported 148 cases of swine influenza A/H1N1 infection. The United States Government has reported 91 laboratory confirmed human cases, with one death. Mexico has reported 26 confirmed human cases of infection including seven deaths." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceglez (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the information is inaccurate? Or did you really mean not precise?

Its difficult to be precise with matters such as this.If you mean inaccurate, then just edit it with what you believe is correct (although I recommend the date updated on your source and the cited source before you do this).Chanhee920 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That edit was my fault. Misread the headline of the source. Infected count has now been fixed --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I expect more out of you! lulz. BFritzen (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A few hours ago the mexican Health Secretary announced that there were 260 confirmed cases. Isn't that offcial information?? The table showed that value a little ago, why did you replace it with 97 again? Rodcontr (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Names

People keep chopping names based on their personal opinions without bothering to research them properly. North American influenza appears to be the most common to go although it appears widely used particularly by pork and food industry source. A Google News search, which I don't particularly like but seems our best option at the moment, reveals the least used term is probably swine-origin influenza which may have been used by the CDC for a while but appears to have been abandoned in favour of 2009 H1N1 flu. If we do want to remove one this is probably the first to go. Either that or we leave it be for now and wait until things settle down. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a reference to an EDIT WAR. Whoever, (And I already know who) is doing this, please STOP AND DESIST. If you have something to contribute do so. If there is something you disagree with, bring it up on the talk page. I have to head home for the day otherwise I would place this on his talk page. Can you link this for me?BFritzen (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is one person responsible? I added North American influenza back twice and I'm pretty sure it was removed by different people each time so I don't know if it's one particular person doing it. Unless you mean me (since I did at it back twice) but I started the discussion so I'm obviously already aware of it :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did inform the two people of this discussion FYI Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars? Oh no sounds like the global warming article all over again. Perhaps you need some light relief[14]79.79.220.104 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, IP, that was a nice diversion. Now back to work...LeadSongDog come howl 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed North American influenza once, I didn't realise it had been done multiple times or I wouldn't have done so. I think the intro should only refer to common names for the virus, not proposed names that haven't been widely adopted. The reason I removed originally was that the citation given was to an OIE press release which merely suggested the term might be appropriate. More recent OIE press relases used A/H1N1 influenza. Now I have searched on google news for "North American influenza" usage, most hits are just about proposals to change the name, rather than common use of the name, and for that reason I think it should be removed. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It appeared that the person, again my suspicion will remain nameless, I don't want anyone to feel like an outsider, but I just wanted to fend off a edit war before it started. Also, the edit in question deleted a large amount of information without reason (entered when editing.) I don't always state why I edit, either. However, the materials were documented and before removing verified, documented information, we should have a topic on the talk page to discuss why and how the sitch can be rectified. BFritzen (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "swine-origin influenza". Firstly, in the citation given it is not called that but "Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1)". I can't find anyone calling it "swine-origin influenza". Secondly "Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1)" is just a more descriptive form of "Influenza A (H1N1)" which is already listed, and not a seperate name that needs to clog up the first paragraph. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Names were swiped clean, I undid it. BFritzen (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again swiped clean. Again re?undid. BFritzen (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

North American Influenza is not in common use, but it is only a proposed name. I would consider it political maneuvering to give readers the impression that this strain "is known as" North American Influenza, when in fact, only the other three names have gained support for common use. Additionally, the largest region of the North American continent does not have a large number of flu cases during the intial outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive dynamic references

Reminder: Some web pages used as references are frequently updated, especially primary sources, and others are not permanent. These types of URLs are more common in current event articles. The Webcite Consortium [15] is one provider of third-party archiving, and identifies Wikipedia as a Level-2 member.[16] This is a call to archive reference web page content that might otherwise be lost leading to verification problems and incorrect OR challenges/defences. --Zigger «º» 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not much a computer nerd. Can you explain this in English? Thanks :)Hdstubbs (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes internet pages die. If you use webcite, it can keep them in memory so we can still read them. If you have a source that dies often (AP or AFP on google news) you should use a webcite thingy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation! We're also losing older content on this topic from MSNBC.MSN, CDC and WHO. And if the referenced page has "Last updated…" or similar, Webcite it ASAP! --Zigger «º» 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol :) Thanks a lot for the plain English. So how do you use this webcite thingy? Just make sure that we use permanent urls? (Is that right?) What if we can't find them? Hdstubbs (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don;t know how to do the webcite thingy, so I just try to use permanet urls. i.e. "examplenews.com\Swine_Flu\story1234.html" rather than the main headline page "examplenews.com\Swine_Flu\" You can find them most of the time. If you can't: try another source. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a web form at http://www.webcitation.org/archive . At its most basic, it only needs a URL & email address. No confirmation is needed. The Wikipedia "cite" templates have fields called archiveurl and archivedate to hold the result. --Zigger «º» 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probable / confirmed weirdness

How is it possible that confirmed cases are higher than probable? That doesn't make sense to me. Example Canada 34[7] 22[8] Yogiudo (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases are seperate from probable. You can't be both. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't confirmed cases just really probable cases? (100% probable, to be specific.) 128.189.250.177 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NopeChanhee920 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If that were so, then death would be 110%. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So confirmed cases are not probable? I would think confirming them makes them very probable to be actual cases... what's the point of confirming a case if it doesn't increase one's certainty that it is actually a case? 128.189.250.177 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to let you dwell on the definitions of "probable" and "confirmed" for a minute. Then I'm going to ask if your a native english speaker. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Confirmed: person has influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory test confirms presence of this strain.
• Probable: person has ILI and one or more of the following: contact with a confirmed case, recent travel to a location with a community outbreak, residence in a location with a community outbreak.
• Suspected: person has ILI and someone fears it is due to this strain.

These are mutually exclusive categories. As people are tested and found not to have this strain, they are excluded from all 4 categories. Thus, the number of confirmed cases can only grow, but the numbers of probable and suspected cases can (and do) grow and shrink. --Una Smith (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(reply to pigflu oink) Probable = likely to be true. Confirmed = true. The latter implies the first: if X is a true, then X must also be likely to be true (100% likely specifically). (reply to una) Your categorization into the three groups doesn't imply mutual exclusivity. 128.189.250.177 (talk)

Yes but no one says '100% likely': "Later on tonight there will be a 30% chance of rain and a 100% chance of darkness" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22100+percent+likely%22 128.189.250.177 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

a high-resolution png is fine too

sure svg is the standard but some people (like me) who like to be informed dont have a super computer to open a huge svg file, why not use a hi-resolution ong instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.6.195.131 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can render all SVG images on wikipedia to 2048px wide PNGs, you dont have to open it as the SVG. chandler ··· 08:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead should be <= four paragraphs, currently six five

Per WP:LEAD: "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." While this is a general guideline, I don't see a compelling reason to exempt this article. Other broader and more important topics (e.g. DNA, Virus) are able to summarize their articles' content in significantly fewer words. Emw2012 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can take a sentence from paragraph #2, put in paragraph #4 and elminiate the rest of it. Then put it in a blender so it reads like this:

The 2009 swine flu outbreak is an epidemic that began in April 2009 with a new strain of influenza virus. The new strain is commonly called swine flu, but some parties object to the name and it has also been referred to as Mexican flu,[50] swine-origin influenza,[51] North American influenza,[52] and 2009 H1N1 flu.[50] The outbreak is believed to have started in March 2009.[53] Local outbreaks of an influenza-like illness were first detected in three areas of Mexico, but the virus responsible was not clinically identified as a new strain until April 24, 2009. Following the identification, its presence was soon confirmed in various Mexican states and in Mexico City. Within days, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other Northern Hemisphere countries.

The new strain is an apparent reassortment of four strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1.[57] Analysis at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified the four component strains as one endemic in humans, one endemic in birds, and two endemic in pigs (swine).[57] One swine strain was widespread in the United States, the other in Eurasia.[57] The common human H1N1 influenza virus affects millions of people every year, according to the WHO, "In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections...which results in between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. "[58] In industrialized countries most of these deaths occur in those 65 or older.[58]

In late April both the United Nations WHO and the U.S. CDC expressed serious concern about the situation, as it had the potential to become a flu pandemic due to the novelty of the influenza strain, its transmission from human to human, and the unusually high mortality rate in Mexico.[59] On April 25, 2009, the WHO formally determined the situation to be a "public health emergency of international concern", with knowledge lacking in regard to "the clinical features, epidemiology, and virology of reported cases and the appropriate responses".[60] By April 28, the new strain was confirmed to have spread to Spain, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Israel, and the virus was suspected in many other nations, with a total of over 3,000 candidate cases, prompting the World Health Organization (WHO) to change its pandemic alert phase to "Phase 5",[54][55][56] which denotes "widespread human infection" . Governments around the world have expressed concern over this virus and are monitoring the situation closely.

Mexico's schools, universities, and all public events will be closed from April 24, 2009 to May 6, 2009.[61][62] On April 27, 2009, a few schools in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students.[63][64] Two days later the action extended to 18 more U.S. schools as the disease became more widespread in the U.S.,[65][66][67][68][69] the same day the Mexican government ordered a shutdown of all non-essential activities in the government and private sector, amounting to a shutdown of most of the country's economy.[70]

We could probably also ditch the last paragraph entirely as a different option or in addition to what I have suggested above.Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Placing the final paragraph under intiial outbreaks might be a good idea. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that placing the final paragraphs under initial outbreaks would be a good idea. Hdstubbs (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 is fine. In fact, it is a consolidation of the old paragraph 6 into that paragraph. If anything is inconsistent, it would be the last paragraph.BFritzen (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only thing that will be useful from Para #2 is the date when WHO moved to Phase 5. In 3 months when we are looking back, I don't think it will be informative for anyone to know what happened on April 28 other than the move to level 5. Also, since it's the intro, those fine details would be better placed elsewhere. And I like the idea of moving para #6 entirely too. I "feels" like it belongs there more than in the intro. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the argument as to why the statistical annual deaths are needed in the intro. The discussion is in PANIC V FACTS. Read that and see the reasoning behind it.BFritzen (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about removing them. I was referring to the part about how on April 28 about 3000 people were infected and a list of suspected countries where the virus was at that time. I don't want to get into the argument that you're referring to at all. I'm just saying that as things are now, I think there is only one sentence from paragraph #2 as it holds now that is actually useful in the intro. After reviewing my proposal from earlier I realized that I mistakenly included the stats that I am talking about removing. I suggest that the intro be edited to read the same as I posted above, except the third paragraph read as follows:

In late April both the United Nations WHO and the U.S. CDC expressed serious concern about the situation, as it had the potential to become a flu pandemic due to the novelty of the influenza strain, its transmission from human to human, and the unusually high mortality rate in Mexico.[59] On April 25, 2009, the WHO formally determined the situation to be a "public health emergency of international concern", with knowledge lacking in regard to "the clinical features, epidemiology, and virology of reported cases and the appropriate responses".[60] By April 28, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed its pandemic alert phase to "Phase 5",[54][55][56] which denotes "widespread human infection". Governments around the world have expressed concern over this virus and are monitoring the situation closely.

Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I don't have any qualms about that, sounds good to me. Sorry about the confusion. BFritzen (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. It probably would have helped if I could type right in the first place. What about moving para #6 though (the one about the schools shutting down)? I think that idea got lost in the shuffle. I still think that's a good idea.Pharmaediting11 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it belongs in the one after "Prior" (forgot the name.) I agree that you should move it.BFritzen (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm running short on time, so I won't be able to do it. But if everyone is OK with it, they can feel free to make the changes I suggested. I'm not too technically inclined with this stuff anyways. It took me ~20 minutes to figure out how to "strike" text. What's the emoticon for a sheepish grin with red cheeks? I think I'd like to insert it here.  :) Pharmaediting11 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead is now 4 paragraphs. The Mexico Schools paragraph was moved to the initial outbreak section. Seems to fit better there.BFritzen (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous work to fix the lead's length seems to have gone well, but now the lead seems to have regrown its fifth paragraph. Emw2012 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I re-worked it and cut the information that is covered in depth later in the article so it is back down to four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, Wikipedia

Between this and other efforts like Google's Flu Trends system -- http://www.google.org/flutrends/ -- the Internet is really emerging as a great medium for real-time information exchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.98.245.197 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you :] Yug (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- Grochim (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. kencf0618 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the article much better. It is much more accurate and tells the facts in a very neutral way (particularly the description of the initial outbreaks. Great work! I like it a lot! Thanks.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree your doing a great job I was tracking SARS for a large enterprise and it was dozens of people, spread sheets and prediction models to monitor the spread of the outbreak. This time we just go to Wikipedia and other social network tools. Fantastic Work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.81.122 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite Error

In references, can someone please fix?BFritzen (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Happens often, don't worry :-) -- Grochim (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It must have been fixed. hmwithτ 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In reference 11 seems to be the letter d of "Englan" missing.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

time from onset of symptoms to death?

Has anyone seen info on how long victims have lived between the time they first showed symptoms and death? Please add this info if you can find it. ike9898 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard the DHS Secretary say (paraphrasing) 'the incubation peroid is about seven days.' I don't remember enough biology to tell you what that means though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Mexican Health Ministry, the virus has two incubation periods, each five days long. It means you can be carrying it for ten days before symptoms start to develop (thus the Mexican stoppage of activities). I'll look for the exact source and start work on it. 201.159.133.18 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. The contagious period is 7 days after symptoms appear in adults - possibly up to ten days in children. This is the reason for the ten day period. Rmhermen (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are adding something here that doesn't need to be. A few people are dead because of this strain but it isn't "automatic" death.BFritzen (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that. Understanding the length of this period though would improve the understanding of this ongoing event. ike9898 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Incubation period refers to the time between when you first contract the disease and when you start to exhibit symptoms. Depending on what disease it is you may or may not be contagious during this time. As for flu, I can't exactly remember all the specifics about it. (I knew I should have paid closer attention in virology class this semester) :) Pharmaediting11 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Revert vandalism by Hsibley -- under "spread within Mexico", text was changed to read "over 9000" from the previous "over 3000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.178.157 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be 4000, as the table suggests.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No longer showing "over 9000". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Six Regions of WHO: A Tufte-like Proposal

http://www.who.int/about/regions/en/index.html

The WHO region map is salient, and not only because of the two-region criterion of Phase Six. It would be useful and informative to color-code their map as the epidemic develops in conjunction with the Mollweide projection —some of those nation-states are kind of cramped. And it's a global epidemic —why not use the WHO's global regions? We are using their data, after all! kencf0618 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. However, we (several other users and myself) have all attempted to change the map using various boundaries, and have all run into the same problem. The original maps coding is pretty complicated in how it is updated and most of us don't have the programming knowledge to mess with that, and the boundaries themselves are too complex to simply draw them in.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pity. I had rather assumed that there was a template somewhere... kencf0618 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That map is a bit odd and political. Is a disease just as serious when it travels across the widest oceans from the Americas to China as when a Berber crosses a couple miles across what he considers his "country" or a New Guinean crosses a line in the middle of his own island? Rmhermen (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Which symptoms image should we have?

• 
  First one. (1).
• 
  New one. (2)
• (3)
  (3)
• 
  (4)
• 
  (5)
• 
  (6)

Since yesterday [17], it seems we have two symptoms images to choose between now, which gives us the advantage to use the one we think fits best. In terms of symptoms, they both say exactly the same. 1 is public domain, while 2, on the other hand, has some rights reserved. 1 looks more realistic, while 2 is more diagram-like. The only other difference is I can see directly is that 2 is taller in order to make the text come out in same size. Are there any other pros and cons, and which one should we have? Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the first one.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 04:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Second one: the intent is to show the symptoms in a clear manner to the lay person; not show some creepy looking swede inside-out boy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Don't discriminate against the inside-outs! I get your point with clear expression though. Still, the more restricted licensing of the second one may be a factor against. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one; perhaps someone could color-edit it so that the affected organs match the highlight color of the symptoms pointing to them, for easier reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.197.134 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the first one. kencf0618 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one. The first one is creepy, to me. I don't like the way his creepy eyes stare out at me when I can see his brain. Hdstubbs (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does making the brain part more transparent ameliorate the creepy issue? You can compare with previous version. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like either. Do we really need these to begin with? The symptoms of swine flue are identical to the symptoms of a bad strain of seasonal flu; in fact, most of the symptoms, e.g. diarrhea, nausea, lethargy, are common to hundreds of unrelated diseases. Does this chart really offer any useful information? What purpose does it serve? Before editors start spending hours creating worthless charts for all sorts of diseases, we really should have this debate. But if we're going to use a chart, I would prefer using an illustration of a person rather than have someone pose as a model, and in any case, the head should be turned sideways to properly illustrate the nasopharynx and areas of the brain (cerebellum).--98.232.98.144 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the diagram has an advantage in being able to illustrate details of the nasopharynx and brain. If it also had a plurality of organs tailored to fit into it and be made public domain or a compatible license, then I'd consider using it as standard template.

I do think the diagrams serve the purpose of giving a quick overview of symptoms, especially for all those who just scroll through articles, as well getting the big picture of the symptoms. Due to strict licensing policies, Wikipedia lacks in illustrating all its text. (And the diagrams don't take hours to make; if you can handle a drag-and-drop doll, then you can make a diagram.) Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the color coded version. Should we change the pic on the article?Drew R. Smith (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed that psychological is spelled wrong in the second image (both versions). — Xy⁷ 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The version that is currently in the article (niether #1 nor #2) looks amateurish (no offense). Replacing it with either #1 or #2 would be an improvement.ike9898 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I replaced it with #2. hmwithτ 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Amatureish? I put a lot of work into that, going over it pixel by pixel to color code the organs. Guess I just wont bother next time.Drew R. Smith (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be a dick about your picture, it's just that the other two look significantly more professional to me. ike9898 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling error and used a PD image for the brain so now the whole file is in the public domain. (4)WilliamTheaker (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. The lethargy is not psychological - it is due to cytokine (in particlar TNFα) release, same for loss of appetite. There is also no mention of the muscle pain (myalgia) and joint pain (arthralgia) that you get in flu. Surely these should get a mention? I would suggest moving loss of appetite and lethargy to "Systemic". |→ Spaully^₪† 07:26, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

I've implemented these changes as best I can, see (5). Adding to article. Will add joint and muscle pain as soon as I can work out how to... |→ Spaully^₪† 11:09, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

I agree lethargy may be classified as systemic as well. However, lack of appetite is felt in psychological way, even if the trigger may be systemic (just as the illness itself). Anyhow, myalgia and arthralgia were easily added to the original (1) image --> (6). Now that some other issues with that original have been compensated for, it seems like it's 50/50 in support between the two versions otherwise. How about changing it? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

'Over reactions' section open

I feel our coverage of the disease name (section 8) should include the reactions or overreactions to the virus that have happened as a result of people erroneously believing (based on only the disease's name) that it is carried by pigs or pig products.

Specifically, two articles that cover this: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/30/1915246.aspx http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/30/pork.industry.impact/index.html

The erroneous impacts / reactions include mass killings of livestock and improper bannings of imports from certain countries. It is quite notable and directly tied to the improper naming of the virus as a "swine flu."

 Done, I just created a 'Over reactions' section. To complete. Yug (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that section's still incomplete - the second article isn't about the Egyption stuff, it's about the importation bans and sales drops of pork products resulting from the name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.197.134 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed the section. Is there something still missing? (If so, a link is really helpful.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In the context suggested for this heading, I'm not sure 'Over Reactions' is an appropriate term. Perhaps 'Misconceptions' would be better suited to cover several topics under the heading?--Wikiqueb (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to simply follow the WHO daily update source for information?

Why are we relying on other news sources instead of the WHO daily updates to provide updated statistics?

Right here it says... http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_01/en/index.html

There are only 156 confirmed cases in Mexico not 312. There are 109 in the USA not 138.

For whatever reason the other countries are correct but why do we keep on inflating the numbers for the US and Mexico?

I don't care if a news source quotes a us or mexican official, the way the news is being carried at the moment makes a lot of the information by the media unreliable. Just consider this headline by the Times Online which is being used as a source for suspected cases. The headline blares "Mexico confirms swine flu toll rises to 159" while the first line in the story says "The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159," if this is not enough evidence as to why we should stick exclusively with what WHO and CDC are saying then this article is as pointless as half the news article circulating out there.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6189805.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.230.247 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying, the values go up and down depending on who edited according to what source Just use WHO and stick to it to avoid this confusing and quite amateuristic yo-yo effect Dr-gonzo (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two points: One you should make this argument on the talk page for the template (the link is at the top of this page) and Two, instead of just using WHO, which is a good source, but shouldn't be the only source, why not make a rule that we only use government agencies for info on lab confirmed cases? 62.69.130.82 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The values are going to go up and down no matter what Dr-gonzo. The situation itself is fast evolving. There is no escaping the yo-yo effect. WHO figures may not be the most recent. If someone has more recent authoritative numbers we should use them. Agree with 62.69.130.82 on sticking as far as possible to official sources. Hawthorn (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the WHO recieves its information from the National Health Agenices. If the National Health Agencies particually the CDC's numbers (141) are more recent than WHOs numbers why would we use something obviously out of date? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this strain called?

This is not about renaming/moving this article, it's about the name of this specific strain of Influenza A virus of subtype H1N1.

• 1918 flu pandemic: "It was caused by an unusually virulent and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1".
• Influenza A virus subtype H1N1: "also known as A(H1N1), is a subtype of influenzavirus A and the most common cause of influenza (flu) in humans. Some strains of H1N1 are endemic in humans".
• This article: "The new virus strain is known as the influenza A (H1N1) virus,[58] and the outbreak has also been variously called the H1N1 influenza,[59] the 2009 H1N1 flu,[59] the North-American flu, or the Mexican flu. [...] The new strain is an apparent reassortment of four strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1. [...] Worldwide the common human H1N1 influenza virus affects millions of people every year [...] The CDC has confirmed that U.S. cases were found to be made up of genetic elements from four different flu viruses – North American swine influenza, North American avian influenza, human influenza,"

It makes no sense that this strain can be called influenza A (H1N1) or H1N1 influenza. That's like calling one specific species of falcon "Bird", or "Aves Falconiformes".

2009 H1N1 flu only makes sense if there is only one strain a year of H1N1.

North-American flu for this strain is less specific than the strain's own constituants: North American swine influenza and North American avian influenza.

I understand that Wikipedia just summarizes what primary and secondary sources say, but are there no sources that have given this strain a sensible name? -- Jeandré, 2009-05-01t13:38z

Sensible is as you see it. Influenza A (A/California/09/2009(H1N1)) is a sensible name to a genetic virologist. Swine flu is sensible to some newsmen, 2009 H1N1 flu is sensible to some pro-pork industry politicians. At Wikipedia, we are concerned with two things - accuracy (any of these names are currently understood to refer to the same thing) and most common name so that the largest number of readers reach the page in the least number of clicks - so for us, so far 2009 swine flu is the sensible name. Rmhermen (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to "common name". Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. To quote "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name". One example, the article influenza, not "flu". Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, Transmission and infection of H5N1, and Global spread of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ht686rg90. Common names are language simplifications. News papers and people have to deal with a low quantity of issues, for them, there is only one 'Avian flu', only one 'Swine flu': the TV broadcast outbreak one. For wikipedia and scientists, there are dozens of Avian flu strains, decades old dozens of Swine flu strains. We have to deal with this: wikipedia have ALREADY far more issues than mass media and TV shows. In wikipedia, it's NOT possible to always use the 'common name'. Yug (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Also, it's very difficult to judge what is the common name. hmwithτ 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose "Captain Trips" ;) 75.156.128.251 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Swine Flu to anything else at this point would be nonsense. There was no Bird Producer Lobby pushing to have Bird Flu renamed, but if there was, could anyone imagine the disservice renaming it would cause. Here in Canada our National News Media, The CBC, said they will not allow the Pork Lobby to dictate a name change to what is commonly known as Swine Flu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.41.12 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Pork Lobby" would include lots of ordinary people making their living from pigs who are punished for no good reason at all due to false information. I fail to understand the comparison to "Bird Flu" which has in fact been renamed. See my earlier comment above.Ht686rg90 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case it's an ethical question and should be kept Swine Flu precisely because a 'lobby' is pushing for the name change. But that's just me.--Wikiqueb (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. How can you defend your position ethically? Ht686rg90 (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see the moral dilemma in allowing any lobby to dictate the name of a disease, then I'm afraid that's something you will have to soul search on your own. The Obama administration doing so mid course doesn't make it right or graceful.--Wikiqueb (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The name is important because "swine flu" implies an assumed zoonosis, meaning swine influenza crossing the species barrier into humans. So far, this strain has not been found in swine. Thus, this new strain appears to be a new strain of human influenza and "swine flu" is a misnomer. --Una Smith (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Influenza A (A/California/09/2009(H1N1)) the actual scientific name or does it have the word Mexico city in place of California? I've seen both. Does anyone have a link? I think that would be useful to put into the article. Hdstubbs (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

2003 SARS Pandemic

In the 2003 pandemic, did the WHO bring their alert level to Phase 6 or did it stay below that the whole time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.141.21 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I can tell you it didn't goto 6, I don't think they've ever gone to 6. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing about it on SARS (which really should be named 2003 SARS outbreak). Maybe the WHO Pandemic Alert Level system isn't that old. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They've never raised it above 3. Barnaby dawson (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is really for discussing how to improve the 2009 swine flu outbreak article. For general questions like this, you can ask at the reference desk. hmwithτ 16:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

HMWITH you are totally right and I am breaking the rules but in answer to the question: this current pandemic six stage alert system was completely revamped post SARS because of what they felt was some problems with the system. So there was a system in place but it wasn't these same levels (I don't know if it was still six stages). I can't remember where I read this or I would send you the link. Hdstubbs (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the CDC response table was also written in response to SARS. This outbreak would have US immedetly goto CDC-Phase4 on the first Mexican Case. It seems the planners were thinking of an inital outbreak outside of North America.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Misleading apparent accuracy

I am concerned that this article is misleading. Media reports of suspected cases, confirmed cases and deaths are given to several significant figures. This gives the impression that the number of individuals infected falls between the suspected number and the confirmed number and that there is a high degree of accurary in these figures themselves. However, this seems likely to be false as suspected cases almost only consist of people who have contacted a doctor, have been detected at a national border or have had contact with these two groups. In addition not all countries may be accurately reporting their figures. The real number of infected is almost certainly higher. Which means that the flu has spread faster than our article suggests and is less deadly than it implies (assuming that deaths are more likely to be detected than mild cases). I don't have the time to search for references to confirm or settle this but I think it should be done. If I'm right our graphs, the table and the introduction should make it clear that the figures quoted do not correspond to actual infections (and possibly not even actual mortality rates). Barnaby dawson (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact I think the graphs, tables and the introduction should make this clear anyhow. If there is evidence I'm right we may need to edit the article more heavily. Barnaby dawson (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the under-reporting right now is due to Mexico. I heard a webcast yesterday the (acting) CDC director say that MEX have just recently recieved the ability to test for the disease themselves and that US State Health Agencies will recieve testing kits Monday (such that agencies don't have to send samples to Atlanta for testing). China and other nations had under-reporting concerns for both SARS and Avian flu (which never reached the human to human stage). You have a valid point of concern on both underreporting and untested individuals but unfortunatly we can only report what is verifiable and these sources (Goverment Medical Statements, or reputable media outlets citing Goverment Medical Authotites) meet the requirements we use for verification on any topic. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think we could make it clearer that the figures are not estimates of the number infected but classifications of reported or detected cases. Thats just being strictly accurate and would not require additional references. But any more would require references you're right. Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Laboratory confirmed" numbers

Where are you getting these "laboratory confirmed" numbers? They keep jumping back and forth. Sometimes when I click refresh on the page a "laboratory confirmed" count decreases. Either it's confirmed or it isn't. Do they go back and retract confirmations, or why are we seeing these highly nonsensical fluctuations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.89.195 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico redacted some of its numbers earlier this week when they claimed they didn't have a valid testing protocol, the most recent changes are mostly due to edit wars over using WHO numbers or CDC, ECDC, or other national agencies--PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial outbreaks and detection

In the "spread within Mexico" section, the first sentence isn't properly sourced:

The outbreak was first detected in Mexico City, where surveillance began picking up a surge in cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) starting March 18

The source for this claim is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8017585.stm but it doesn't say anything about March 18 or Mexico City. Analoguni (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I contributed the claim, and I recall that I got it from the WHO website. I included a complete ref; you can check my contribs to find it again. --Una Smith (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

China & Hong Kong Confirmed Cases

According to BBC China has confirmed their first case of H1N1 2009 - Flu in Hong Kong in a man traveling via Shanghai. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028169.stm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/health/02flu.html?ref=asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.57.165 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese have cordoned off the area around the hotel.

Article should be updated to note a confirmed case in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.57.165 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added under Hong Kong --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that Hong Kong is not a country thus the information is incorrect. Yogiudo (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. The health care system and government structures are widely different between the two places. Saying there is a confirmed case in Hong Kong is very different from saying there is a confirmed case in China. The purpose of the table is to measure the worldwide spread and as such the two categories should be different. Further, under the idea of common name, the media frequently refers to Hong Kong in its own right. --Hdstubbs (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unusually lethal? This should be changed.

In the Spread in Mexico section it reads:

"The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico but not in other countries."

this is POV and should accurately read "The strain in Mexico has caused 12 confirmed deaths so far while no other deaths have been reported in any other countries."

Is it unusual to die from the flu virus be it this strain or any other? Do the 12 confirmed deaths from H1N1 among the yet undetermined total number of cases give any basis to consider that this "strain appears to be unusually lethal"?

The wording conveys the sense that there is some sort of "supervirus" going on in Mexico causing an "unsual" number of deaths. This is not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

'No deaths' in other countries is also inaccurate, um random internet shouter guy.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the derision to the argument posed by stating "random internet shouter guy". I was inaccurate to say 'no deaths' since there has been one recorded in the US of a Mexican citizen who was treated there. Does the fact that I am not logged in make you ignore the argument? Nice editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is just Pigflu's personality. It is quite nice because it brings brevity to a mostly serious topic. I don't see how that is derisive. If you are offended, just see his other comments. Usually very good, but at times a bit quirky. BFritzen (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one really knows what the real mortality rate for the current epidemic might be, since it's really too early to know: it could be high, it could be low, we just have no idea. We also don't really know how easily it spreads yet. There's also the fear that it might mutate/reassort into something nastier than the current version at some point, as it coincides with the ordinary flu season in some countries. We will know more in a few weeks' time, once sample sizes are big enough to judge.

That's the thing about risks; they're unpredictable. It's prudent to plan for the worst -- bacause it just might happen -- but at the same time realise that the worst-case is actually fairly unlikely, in part because we are treating it as a big deal now. The more we take prudent action now, the less likely it is that the worst case scenarios will happen.

See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/515616 for more information about the range of possible mortality rates: 1/100,000 would be no big deal for a flu season, 529/100,000, as in the 1918-19 pandemic in the U.S., would be a disaster. -- The Anome (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, Anome. It is just that I am baffled as to how come there is this specific sentence in the article that says that the H1N1 is "unusually lethal in Mexico" when there is no amount of data to back that up. Considering that there are only 12 recorded deaths among an unspecified number of cases, how has one arrived to that conclusion? I mean, just because you add the word "appears" before it, that doesn't make it any more accurate. If influenza of any other type would not produce the 10's of thousands deaths a year around countries in the world, I would take it that just 1 death by H1N1 is one too many.

Look you can keep the sentence as it is, I just find it inaccurate and wanted to see if anyone could give me a rational as to why that sentence is there, specifically the wording "unusually lethal". -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk • contribs)

I've chopped out the offending words where they appear, since they are either not supported by the specific cite given, or (in the second case) supported by any cite at all. 1 death in a sample of around 200 gives us no real information at all about any possible mortality rate in the U.S., since it's (a) too small a sample, (b) too early to tell, and (c) we have no idea about what the eventual prevalence might be. (By the way, I'm not an epidemiologist or any kind of expert: just an interested observer.) -- The Anome (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my argument, Anome. And considering how courteous and professional you were with addressing it, I am conviced it pays off to register oneself in Wikipedia. So I am off to get registered and hopefully contribute with something in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fix the map

South Korea should be yellow not red, and Russia also should be yellow since they are suspected. Kadrun (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Russian case tested negative. NM thinking of an earlier case. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and Unreliable Sources

Discussion moved to Template talk page

The information presented in the Table on the number of Possible or Probable Cases and Deaths of H1N1 flu victims suffers from the inclusion of dozens of unreliable and unverifiable information which makes is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article on this subject and has gotten out of hand. Re: Reliable Sources for Medicine-Related Articles Many of the referenced sources are popular news articles that are passing along rumor and unverified information. What got me started trying to raise the flag about inaccurate information stemmed from several articles from non-popular, local news outlets that were simply reporting hearsay and random emails about someone possibly being sick, and then later retracting the information. The popular press is playing fast and loose with any facts they present, which makes the listing of possible and probable cases as something that is fluid, un-scientific, and unencyclopedic. The information from those sources would never make it into any journal article or respected publication due to these problems. It is irresponsible for wikipedians to be spreading such information on a medically-related wikipedia article, at the top of the page, that distorts the information being distributed by government sources and medically-oriented sources and publications about the outbreak. The table sensationalizes the issue, and portrays inaccurate numbers that are meaningless. Whereas some popular news articles publish updated WHO, CDC, and other medically-related bodies, that is okay as they are reporting verifiable facts. Years of medical school have taught me that for medicine, you need to look at your level of evidence...and Wikipedia is no different, especially when it comes to presenting information about medicine-related topics. We should be listing information from reliable sources, and only including breaking-information from those sources where an popular-press author has provided that information ahead of the reliable source's publications. Including popular-press scare-mongering information that is designed to grab headlines is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article that is supposed to be presenting a NPOV. I would like people to discuss this issue regarding the removal of unreliable information from the table. I tried adding a tag to the table sub-article, but was quickly banned by some authors that wanted to mute any discussion about reliable sources in inaccuracies. We are all trying to ensure that Wikipedia provides a balanced, and accurate representation. Flipper9 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Didn't we do this dance just yesterday? My feet are tired. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) You may want to discuss this at Template_talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

update request for france

Thanks to update french data:

• suspected cases: 27,
• probable cases: 3,
• confirmed cases: 2,
• deaths: none.

source: http://www.invs.sante.fr/derniere_minute/fichiers/10.bilan01052009_19h00.pdf

--86.220.46.203 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Yes I Anonymous

You may want to discuss this at Template_talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with references

I rewrote the second paragraph to be a little more accurate:

Although the exact time and location of the outbreak is unknown, it is believed to have been first detected when an influenza-like illness was reported by both health agencies and local news media in Mexico. The virus responsible was clinically identified as a new strain on April 24, 2009. Within days, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other countries.

But could someone help me with adding the references to the bottom of the page. There should be a citation for this source after both the first and second sentences: http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/biosurveillance/2009/04/swine-flu-in-mexico-timeline-of-events.html

Thanks. And could someone give me a link to how to change references myself? I can't find one. Hdstubbs (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Death Toll etc,

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please get the death tolls from the WHO site, they are official figures,

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_01a/en/index.html - Latest Update http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html - Swine Flu main Page

No. We are using all available sources, not just the WHO. I'm NOT saying however, that we aren't using the WHO. We are just using all available sources. Drew R. Smith (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

owever, on review of the sources, I saw that this was released 20 mins ago, and are probably the most accurate figures right now. I will put them into the tables.Drew R. Smith (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NYT reference 148 incorrect

The NYT article referred at reference 148 Fighting Deadly Flu mentions that "Most of Mexico’s dead were young, healthy adults, and none were over 60 or under 3 years old, the World Health Organization said" which is incorrect according to Influenza-like illness in the United States and Mexico The WHO release mentions that 18 of the 24 cases showing ILI were young, healthy adults. The same article mentioned that only 3 died, and gave no indication if those 3 were among the 18 or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.1.130 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2009

Yes, I agree. I mentioned this above under the heading "... the reported deaths from the illness have primarily been young, healthy adults." Can someone please edit this to something more accurate? Does anyone actually know the demographics of the dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoExaggeration (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again this is mentioned in the line "The Mexican fatalities are alleged to be mainly young adults of 25 to 45, a common trait of pandemic flu.[71][101]". However the references say nothing about the deaths of young adults, only that many cases are 'said' to be young adults. NoExaggeration (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

definition of the term 'pandemic'

i don't really have time to scour this discussion for a thread similar to the one i'm proposing, however it seems prudent the occurrence of the term 'pandemic' in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH ought have a definition option attached.

so no one needs go scrambling for it, here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

i would add it as such, but the article seems locked (understandable...).

you're welcome ;-) 69.11.55.241 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Adressed. Vrinan (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Reading

I was reading this on the CDC website and it breaks down (albeit in the USA) deaths and rates of infection for 3 different strains of influenza, but not AH1N1. Influenza by Week. It is not unlike what we are seeing with this one, but I will let you all read and (hopefully) get an idea that this is an epidemic (at most) and the "pandemoniademic" isn't really a threat.BFritzen (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, that currently this epidemic is not what epidemiologists have long feared in terms of an influenza outbreak. However, even though the media has engaged in fear-mongering and hype, there is a real public health issue here for both developed and developing nations. [18]If you're looking for interesting article read this. --Hdstubbs (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The H1N1 outbreak has been a real wake-up call (one which the article is just beginning to reflect). kencf0618 (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted this Government Actions Section

I deleted the government actions section because it was already mentioned in the country specific discussion section. Just wanted to put it on the talk page in case anyone wanted to discuss. Hdstubbs (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Chapter Prior influenza season

This chapter has nothing lost on this page. I think it shoule be deleted or maybe linked somewhere.
- This is a international crisis and an international article. I dont see how the influenza season of one country is related to the topic in any way.
- the text is missleading because it doesnt mention that it talks about the US when stating "prior influenza season.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.64.57 (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if it was expanded to include other countries it would become too long and still not be relevant to the rest of the article. -Pontificalibus (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Smithfield Farms from Virginia in Veracruz

s It is not Smithfield Farms the one who has to say they are not the cause of the problem, OMS should confirm that. Because in 1985, Smithfield Farms received what was, at the time, the most expensive fine in history – $12.6 million – for violating the US Clean Water Act at its pig facilities near the Pagan River in Smithfield, Virginia , but when NAFTA came into effect 1994, Smithfield Farms moved its harmful practices to Veracruz, Mexico so that it could evade the tougher US regulators. Reporter Jeff Teitz reported in 2006 on the conditions in Smithfield’s US facilities: " Pigs are artificially inseminated and injected with antibiotics to bear the sicknesses they have. They are fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. The temperature inside hog houses is often hotter than ninety degrees. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The air, saturated almost to the point of precipitation with gases from shit and chemicals became lethal and pigs start dying."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

Consider what happens when such forms of massive pork production move to unregulated territory where Mexican authorities allow wealthy interests to do business without adequate oversight. What happen when a lagoon is near, filled with all that shit and flies transport their sicknesses to the people.

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=opinion&article=020a1pol&partner=rss http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/04/24/index.php?section=opinion&article=026a2pol

Perhaps this should have its own article? Oliana (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on Smithfield Foods and Intensive pig farming. It might be worth an article but I suspect there isn't enough information available yet. Smartse (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence on the eariest origins of this swine flu. I have read that this is a mix of human, avian and swine varieties of flu.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a combination of strains - but a combination that has been present in pigs for several years. So far, this exact strain has not been detected in swine but there are associated complaints of the poor quality of swine survelliance. It's too early to know where it originated. Rmhermen (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the contaminated water from Smithfield's operations cause any sickness in Virginia?Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So far, the only connection between the outbreak and this pig farm is a single case in the vicinity. Samples from other cases in the vicinity reportedly have been tested and were negative, and the corporation claims they test for swine flu in their pigs and found none. There was an outbreak of influenza-like illness in the vicinity early this year, but the connection to this outbreak is very weak. So, don't count on this theory holding up. --Una Smith (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

3 children died before, but no samples were taken to be analyzed, samples were taken until Veratec arrived to La Gloria 1 month after that.

http://enlace.vazquezchagoya.com/?p=6277

Mexico is not USA, in USA Smithfield was fined for feeding pigs with “poultry litter” and new laws were made (“poultry litter” is a mixture of everything found on the floor of chicken farms: fecal matter, feathers, bedding etc)

http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/livestock/aps-04_03/aps-318.html

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/a-food-system-that-kills-swine-flu-is-meat-industrys-latest-plague/

(and there is a big chicken farm near la Gloria, some chickens died form aviar influenza)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/mexican-lawmaker-factory_b_191579.html

but in Mexico, Smithfield bought to the government of Veracruz, Veracruz is a poor state, the parents of the dead children in La Gloria and their teachers begun to protest for the contamination, but they were put in jale, the lagoons were fumigated and the people of La Gloria was vaccinated for stationary influenza, some were cured but the others were taken to the DF hospitals. It was until that date when Veratec arrived to La Gloria to take samples of the sick people.

http://enlace.vazquezchagoya.com/?p=6230

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-30-cdc-swine-strain/

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-28-more-smithfield-swine/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/full/435390a.html

http://www.marcha.com.mx/resumen.php?id=2128

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/06/index.php?section=estados&article=030n1est

http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=84632

Aw geeze, now ya tell me. I just bought a Smithfield ham yesterday... Terry Yager (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, you wont be sick, swines were vaccinated and injected with a lot of antibiotics. That's the reason Smithfield swines are not sick and it will be very difficult to find Smithfield guilty.

Some statistics

As we collected a lot of figures from hundred of different sources here, I made a chart of the reported possible and confirmed cases. The x-axis is in hours, started from 26th April 2009. The figures are taken from the article's and template's history every hour. Well 2 notes: Development for the confirmed cases seemed to be exponential (5 days/5 doublings: 30 - 60 - 120 - 240 - 500). The reported possible cases are rather linear. -- Grochim (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interresting, maybe add to the article, although I don't know if this qualifies as "original research". 128.232.228.74 (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. I like. Please add. As far as the original research thing - data is data no matter how presented. If you stick to presenting data you on on solid ground. Interpreting it is another matter.Hawthorn (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I placed it in the article below the table. -- Grochim (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are absolutely amazing. It's just what the article needed. Thank you so much for creating these, Grochim. hmwithτ 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)While I appreciate the effort that Grochim took to make these charts, their use in the article is inappropriate because:

• The data is based on wikipedia numbers which is definitely not an WP:RS, and also known to be wrong (as anyone who has been working on maintaining the table knows, the totals are not always correct/up-to-date)
• The data plot itself is arbitrary OR, since no medical authority has attested that the "number-of-reported/confirmed-cases vs hours starting from an arbitrary deadline" is an informative or meaningful metric for an outbreak in its early stages. Rather, epidemiologists have cautioned that such data is both inaccurate and deceptive.[19]

In short, despite the good intentions, these graphs are against wiki-policy of OR, and also meaningless, inaccurate and potentially alarming. So I'm going to remove them from the article; if you disagree feel free to discuss the issue here on talk page and establish consensus for inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But this is a misunderstood, because the chart is only based on figures of external sources. All figures are sourced, the source of the data material is definitely not Wikipedia, not even one number in the chart. The chart shows the reported cases since April, 26th. If the period is going to be increased, it won't look more harmless, don't worry. The data of the confirmed cases is from labor tests, I don't think it is inaccurate or deceptive. -- Grochim (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no source (besides wikipedia article history) can attest that the number of reported possible cases 61 hours following April 26th, 2009 was 2500, the source of the numbers is definitely wikipedia. And using those (inaccurate) numbers to form the basis of the graph is OR; wikipedia policy does allow us to to do simple analysis of sourced data (eg. dividing a countries population by its area to calculate the standard metric of population density); however we cannot simply collate data from statistics in wikipedia article history without violating WP:OR.

Leaving the issue of OR aside for the moment, the graphs are also meaningless and deceltive, i.e., no reviewer in any journal would agree to publish this data even if it the data itself was verifiable; here are the reasons:

1. See [20] to see why epidemologists warn that the early data reports in an outbreak are deceptive. IIRC Science website also had a discussion of the risk of overhyping the early reports but I'll have to search for the link. Do read 2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Media_response_and_bias for more discussion of the issue.
2. The plot also suffers from false precision, plotting the increase in reported cases hourly, contrary to anything you'll find in an epidemological journal or indeed CDC reports such as this one or this 2 year plot for the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic.
3. As you'll see from the CDC chart above, the cases vs date plots are typically for day of onset of ilness, and not for the day the illness was reported; since the latter is more a measure of the medical infrastructure in play than the spread of the disease itself. Of course, this nuance doesn't make much of a difference when the least count of the time axis is much greater than the expected duration of the illness (5-10 days in our case), but for a plot covering a period of few weeks or months, this would be critical.
4. The plot adds up data from different countries with different reporting standards and (possibly) definitions of probable/suspected/confirmed. See the caveats in Johnson NPAS, Mueller J. Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918–1920 "Spanish" influenza pandemic. Bull Hist Med. 2002;76:105–15, to understand why this is a risky endeavor. Of course, scientists do do this in some papers but only when addressing fellow-experts who understand the nuances, and with the caveats stated up-front. We too are doing this by including a "total" row in our tables, but that number should, in fact, be under-emphasized, as is hopefully apparent by reading the Media bias and response section of our article.
5. At these early stages, the error-bars and noise in the data (if we actually knew them) are so large that plotting this data to display a polynomial or exponential rise in the number of cases is simply unwarranted.

Now I don't mean to sound harsh, and I appreciate your efforts; but these plot, though tantalizing to the lay audience, are just junk science. Instead of WP:OR we should follow the lead of medical authorities like WHO and CDC in what information to include and what is the proper way to present it. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the medical authories knows right now as much as you and me. It's quite difficult to get reliable and meaningful numbers in such an early state, that's true. And we also know that the chart does not necessarily correspond with the real-time spread of the virus, because there are delays in the labors. On the other hand there is a lot of uncertainty about the further developments, that's why I took the numbers and created a chart. Right now it is not that important because of the inaccuracy, yes. Let's hope that the chart will not become important in future neither. -- Grochim (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of seeing this in the article per wikipedia policy of using common sense. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest adding an estimate of the current death rate (i.e., percentage of death among the confirmed cases in the last one or two days), and graph its history since the beginning of the epidemic.. I believe this is a meaningful quantity, since it would (I expect) reflect the fact that awareness and treatment availability improve chances of survival, and it would help lower the level of panic among the population. I think lowering this level is an important goal of good informers, Wikipedians. 140.180.171.121 (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we have a diagram showing daily *new* suspected/confirmed cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.209.10 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest Mexican numbers do not fit any statistical epidemiology/pandemic model. Looks like a hide and seek game influenced by political / economical factors. The truth will, as usual, reveal itself as time goes by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.233.106 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Patient Zero

If there are confirmed cases of infection prior to when patient zero became infected (see main article), how is it that he is still being considered patient zero? Have there been any other patient zero candidates? Victor Engel (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Any claims of a patient zero of are entirely media speculation. They do not know who patient zero is. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/29/2009-04-29_is_5yearold_edgar_hernandez_patient_zero_mexican_governor_says_so_officials_not_.html Hdstubbs (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We may not be allowed to speculate, but the media does, and does so often, and we are allowed to include notable speculation that can be reliably sourced and surrounded with proper context.   user:j    (aka justen)   09:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As previous discussions show, that 5-year-old boy CANNOT be patient zero (by logic) even if media calls him though. Therefore, it can be put in the Widipedia article, but only with the hint that it is just called by the media so, but that there were other "cases" before (see Spanish version, for example): http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brote_de_gripe_porcina_de_2009#Origen--201.153.40.28 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Johann Hari has written a column in The Independent that claims the current flu came from factory-farmed pigs.[21] Does anyone know if this is possible or has been confirmed? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article most certainly does not make that claim:

... the evidence is suggestive, although far from conclusive. We know that the city where this swine flu first emerged – Perote, Mexico – contains a massive industrial pig farm, and houses 950,000 pigs. Dr Silbergeld adds: "Factory farms are not biosecure at all. People are going in and out all the time. If you stand a few miles down-wind from a factory farm, you can pick up the pathogens easily. And manure from these farms isn't always disposed of."

I find the article to be interesting, well written, and well reasoned. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that this epidemic isn't swine flu. It is influenza A H1N1. BFritzen (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the label "swine flu", which is part of the name of this Wikipedia article, this section of the talk page isn't the right place to challenge it. Please keep comments in this section on point - in this case, on the origins of the virus. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone has added this story to the WP article so I will cite it with the Independent story. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

First statistics regarding the mortality rate of the H1N1 virus.

This information is according to the Health Minister of the Mexican State of Sonora. Sonora borders the US state of Arizona.

Per the Health Minister of the state regarding the mortality rate of the H1N1 virus:

http://www.ehui.com/?c=20&a=117048

"Según los estudios que se han realizado de la influenza se determinó que la enfermedad es curable y que su índice de mortandad es de 3.6 por ciento, lo cual es similar a las neumonías que se presentan cada año, destacó Raymundo López Vucovich.

El Secretario de Salud aseguró que Sonora continúa libre del virus, pues no hay casos ni sospechosos, ni probables"

According to the studies made, the disease is treatable and the mortality rate is of 3.6% which is considered similar to that of the normal flu virus. He added that the state of Sonora is currently without any probable, confirmed or deadly cases to report.

GaussianCopula (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Should any of this information be added to the Spread within Mexico section?

GaussianCopula (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

3.6% death rate is surely not similar to the death rate from flu (more like 0.5%). Even the Spanish flu only had a 2.5% death rate. I think we should treat this report with a high degree of caution and look for corroborating or contradictory sources before including it. Certainly this report, if used, must be attributed in the text (not just a reference) given its significance. Barnaby dawson (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with you. I am not a medical person but a math guy. I don't know if the mortality rate of influenza in Mexico differs from that of the norm worlwide. I just linked to the most recent information and the Health Minister from Sonora could well be way off in his statistics.

GaussianCopula (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When I think about it. It might be that the death rate from influenza in Mexico is much higher than that from the US or worldwide. Maybe that is the explanation.

GaussianCopula (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish quote above says the death rate is comparable to the annual death rate from pneumonia, not from influenza. As numerous reports have mentioned, in Mexico the deaths attributed to this new strain of influenza typically involve secondary infection with "unusual" pneumonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.45.204 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clarifying it. I guess he was speaking of people who caught the flu and then due to complications it turned into pneumonia. From which the rate of 3.6% is considering normal. Thanks.

GaussianCopula (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

R zero infection coefficient should be published. It is very low.

New Scientist quotes a study that shows infection rate Ro of AH1n! as being 1,16, meaning 100 people will infect 116 others, barely sustainable. Infection rate of Ro 2 is exponential, Spanish flu was 3,14, namely uncontrolable. If Ah1n1 Ro falls from 1,16 to under 0,99 it will die out. Washing hands would do that.

[[Media: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17072-first-genetic-analysis-of-swine-flu-reveals-potency.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news]]

quote Weak virus

If the new virus spreads from one infected person to the next at about the same speed as ordinary flu, that gives an idea of how many cases there may have been in that time. A mathematical model permits the calculation of an important variable called R0 – the number of additional people infected, on average, by each case. If R0 is less than one, an infection dies out.

Grassly also cautions that the estimate is very preliminary. But with the data available now, he gets an R0 of 1.16 – enough for the virus to keep going, but only just. unquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.69.7 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is very significant, if it stands up. Do we have any other sources for this? Is a preliminary writeup of their research available anywhere? -- The Anome (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[By the way, what is Ro ? O.o, have we an article ?] Yug (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. It seems to be discussed here - Epidemic_model#Reproduction_Number. Unfortunately that article is very much an essay and needs editing. Would be good to have a proper explanation of this. Will look at working on that article, not immediately though. |→ Spaully^₪† 14:37, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

A better one: Basic reproduction number. Should be linked with this information. |→ Spaully^₪† 14:39, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

This AP article claims that 1000 people (students/teachers/parents) at a school in New York City were infected "in just a few days following the return of a handful of kids from a trip to Mexico." This is probably going to lead to improved statistics about the rate of new infections - either by understanding how the infections were transmitted at that school, or by seeing how containable A/H1N1 is from 1000 New Yorkers and their families/friends/nearby-people-on-subways etc... Boud (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The AP story is vastly over blown only 59 cases at the school were confirmed as Swine Influenza and another 14 probable cases awaiting further testing. Repeating the AP story at this point is fear mongering NYC Department of Health and "Mental Hygine" (wtf is mental hygine). Furthermorethe AP story doesn;t say they were infected, it says they fell ill. They could have contracted any possible strain of influenza commonly spread among students. Lastly, the NYC says that only 1 confirmed case is not know to have any connection to Mexico or to the School, the fears of mass infections on the subway, are by the case evidence, unsubstaniated. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Useless panic

More more persons will gain in lottery, than will die of this influenza.This panic is useless.This isn't the flu of 1918 and 1919 and our medicine and technology is faraheadm, than 1919.Agre22 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

The initial incorrect reports of rate lethality from Mexico caused the concern. The number infected from Mexico is close to the number hospitalized which is perhaps 1/100 of the actual number infected. This caused the death rate to look 100 times higher than reality. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific changes to the article in mind? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You will have to put two and two together to make this deduction, which isn't allowed by wikipedia. Someone else will have to make the deduction, post it on the web then wikipedia can use it as a reference. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

While I hope that the lethality is truly that low, we should not lose track of the fact that the normal, seasonal flu kills (for example) around 36,000 people yearly in the U.S., twelve times the death toll of the World Trade Center attacks. Adding a new strain to these, for which people do not have immunity, is still a disaster. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that the H1N1 virus is not or very dangerous is at this point just POV as there is no way to predict the future development of this virus. We don't know how this virus will behave in an area like Africa. Or whether or not it will mutate into something more or less dangerous. Nor is there no cure for flu at the moment. Thus it is better to keep statements about the severity of the virus outside the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050101777.html?hpid=topnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.72.151 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

POV? You have to be joking, the mortality data proves this story is a fraud. The real question is here is who, other than Wikipedians, is pushing this nonsense and why. See Infowars.com for real coverage of the latest sequel to 1984 (... silly me, I thought Orwell was dead). 06:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Cuba is now 'showing off' to. [[22]] --86.29.246.140 (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Infowars is nothing more than a conspiracy site. Its better to follow the WHO which has stated that it is far to early to make definitive conclusions about the severity of the virus. Than the ramblings of an man that has probable never read a book about microorganisms in his life. And is just trying to make an few bucks out of another tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.72.151 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

virus damaged by freezing

The article currently implies the virus is damaged by heating (ie, only by heating). In fact, it is damaged also by disinfectants and by freezing. To preserve fresh flu samples for testing, they are chilled, not frozen. Flu virus can be kept frozen for many years by (a) adding chemicals that prevent damage to the virus and (b) storing in the absence of ice and (b) avoiding freeze-thaw cycles. One way pig farmers control influenza is to ensure pigs with flu are kept in warm indoors and outdoors in warm weather or below freezing weather but not in cold weather. Assay kits for detecting H1N1 in swine are damaged by freezing because the kits use the two proteins (the H and N) used by the virus to enter host cells, and these proteins are inactivated by freezing. Some sources are below. --Una Smith (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Romijn PC, Swallow C, Edwards S (1989). "Survival of influenza virus in pig tissues after slaughter". The Veterinary Record. 124 (9): 224. PMID 2538954. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• De Flora S, Badolati G (1973). "Inactivation of A2-Hong Kong influenza virus by heat and by freeze-thawing. Comparison of untreated and gamma-irradiated preparations". Bollettino dell'Istituto Sieroterapico Milanese. 52 (4): 293–305. PMID 4777698.
• "INSERT Ref. VS003: Swine influenza" (PDF).

Cytokine storms

does the swine flu cause cytokine storms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.75.137 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. We do not have enough sourced statements from qualifed medical personel to say anything about Cytokine storms with regard to this flu. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New statistic regarding the mortality rate of the H1N1 virus

According to the Berlin immunologist Stefan Kaufmann as quoted in the Financial Times Deutschland, the death rate so far for the H1N1 virus is around 1% which is significantly lower than that of the avian flu which he considers it to be around 30%-50%. (The avian flu wikipedia article has the WHO official rate at around 60%).

"Auch diesmal melden Apotheken ebenfalls eine steigende Nachfrage nach Medikamenten. Die Regierung warnte aber davor, Tamiflu und ähnliche Medikamente präventiv einzunehmen. Die Schweinegrippe des Virentyps H1N1 sei viel ungefährlicher als die Vogelgrippe, erklärt der Berliner Immunologe Stefan Kaufmann. Die Schweinegrippe sei zwar im Gegensatz zur Vogelgrippe von Mensch zu Mensch übertragbar, die Todesrate liege aber nur bei rund einem Prozent. "Bei der Vogelgrippe sind es 30 bis 50 Prozent." "

http://www.ftd.de/politik/deutschland/:Schweinegrippe-in-Deutschland-Virologen-warnen-vor-Panikmache/507700.html

GaussianCopula (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding another article which quotes the Mexican Health Minister and pegs the mortality rate at possibly around 1.2%

Also adds information that around 25% of patients whom enter hospitals complaining of respiratory sickness, meet the criteria of similarity to possible H1N1 flu.

"Señaló que el índice de mortalidad pudiera ser de un 1.2% y explicó que de todos los pacientes que acuden a un hospital por una enfermedad respiratoria, sólo el 25% llena los criterios de presentar síntomas similares a los provocados por la influenza humana.

http://www.cnnexpansion.com/actualidad/2009/05/01/ssa-reporta-16-muertos-por-el-virus-h1n1

GaussianCopula (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

0.1% is more realistic if you look at U.S. citizen numbers. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone should recalculate the total of confirmed cases in the table, The real one is above the written one.

its closer to 800 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.148.66 (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

diarrhea is NOT a symptom

Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea are not symptoms of this virus. One reporter reported that some spring breakers had that. Some spring breakers also drank alcohol and got traveler's influenza in addition to the virus. Please remove the extremely incorrect image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.241.7 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 09:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, for example see here: Swine flu case definition --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

... the reported deaths from the illness have primarily been young, healthy adults.

The reference for this comment ([23] in the 'Pandemic Concern' section) does state this, but it is wrong. The WHO statement that the reference article refers to states that most cases have been young, healthy adults, not most deaths.

Can someone please edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoExaggeration (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to identify the WHO statement that you mention; there isn't any obvious link in the NYT article to a WHO statement, as far as I can see. If you can provide a link here, then editors can check the WHO statement and see if the NYT got it wrong. Otherwise, we have to go with what is in the newspaper article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the 4th paragraph of the NY Times article, on the word 'said'. Here's the link: [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoExaggeration (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the link is wrong, or the page being linked to has significantly changed. Here's the complete sentence: Most of Mexico’s dead were young, healthy adults, and none were over 60 or under 3 years old, the World Health Organization said. But the linked WHO page doesn't mention ages (3, 60) at all. That the linked WHO page does not provide support for the information in the sentence in NY Times does not make the information in the article wrong, it just makes it more questionable, since the WHO information does not contradict the NY Times article. This is the New York Times (excellent writers, good fact-checkers), and the information stated in the NYT article about deaths is consistent with those who get ill (the majority are healthy, not old or young). It's possible, of course, that the pattern of deaths is different than the pattern of illnesses, but it would be presumptuous to make that assumption.

In short, I'm not willing to change the information unless someone finds a WHO page that specifically contradicts the NY Times article; that is, a WHO (or other) report that provides age-related information about deaths. (I did some Google searches but didn't find anything.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If the NY Times are 'excellent writers' and 'good fact checkers', why did they make the large mistake of referencing a WHO page that confirms nothing of what they stated... Not the best journalism. I think it should at least be changed to 'alleged', or 'said to be', rather than stating it as a fact. Or even 'the NY Times alleges that...'. This is especially important because of the media bias for trying to create fear to get more viewers. NoExaggeration (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the wording (a) to hew more closely to what the NYT article said, and (b) to say that the NYT "reported" this information (for the use of words like "alleged", see WP:AWW). Again, I encourage researching what WHO and other more primary sources have said about those who have died in Mexico (and replacing the NYT article statements if necessary) rather than concluding that since the NYT article link is bad, the information is incorrect. There is no valid basis for assuming that a bad link makes information suspect; a better explanation is simple human error. And NYT writers don't make up things out of whole cloth. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, as far as I'm aware, one cannot be a "young, healthy adult" if one has a fatal disease. Very sloppy writing... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They obviously mean that they are "healthy" in all respects other than the virus itself. Often the deaths can be caused by complications related to other conditions that a patient may have, exaggerated by exposure to the virus, but in this case the virus has been the sole cause of death in some people. magnius (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Revised Mexico deaths

The BBC is reporting that the Mexican Secretariat of Health has revised suspected Swine Flu deaths down to 101. This should probably be updated in the article and table - Dumelow (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they have revised the probable death count to 101, but confirmed deaths in Mexico still sits at 16. This is according to both the latest WHO update and the BBC website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PixelPerfect (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Doh! I must have been looking at the wrong column, I thought I read suspected deaths in Mexico were 162. The article was correct - Dumelow (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read that 1303 cases were tested, from which 473 were confirmed to have the "human flu" (new name for the "swine flu"), and 19 of them died: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/595391.html Please update.--201.153.17.190 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is much speculation that the virus in Mexico is a variant of the cases in the US and hence the lower mortality rate. However I have heard alternate speculation that it may because those in Mexico were not given vaccinations against bacterial infection as were those in the US and that the increased mortality is caused by pneumonia (after the viral infection) due to their increased susceptibility. Has anyone come across any evidence or articles to provide support for this argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.189.55 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have speculated this from almost the beginning as I heard first time of it because our pediatrician told us something like that: The influenza vaccine in Europe won't protect much from influenza in Latin America. The same about the vaccine from the US. BUT Mexicans get the vaccine from the US (IF ANY). As far as I know there are hardly ever flu cases in Mexico (I don't have statistics that show it, would be interesting to see them, though), and even less often get vaccinated. But this is just my experience. No sources that prove it.--201.153.17.190 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes in the section Spread within Mexico

I am wondering if we should remove the line which says:

"Although there have been reports of 152 "probable deaths"[83] in Mexico City and "more than 100 dead from swine flu",[84] the WHO had received reports of only 16 confirmed deaths total and explicitly denied the larger figure as of April 29.[85][86]"

The reason for this is that the two sources are BBC and The Herald Sun with information dated April 28 and 27, respectively.

If one looks at the same news sources as of May 2 and May 3, repectively, they have both updated information which is inconsistent with their early reports and consistent with the latest information which is being used. This is probably due to the initial reports being somewhat unrealible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8030859.stm Dated May 2.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25421503-5005961,00.html Dated May 3.

GaussianCopula (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed change is in the information regarding "The Mexican fatalities are alleged to be mainly young adults of 25 to 45". This should be changed to "mainly young female adults..."

This is consistent with the latest information whereby 14 of the 19 deaths are female and as stated by the Health Minister of Mexico.

http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/2009/05/mexico-esta-demostrando-que-estaba-preparado-para-enfrentar-una-epidemia-como-a-la-que-afecta-al-pais/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jz6xx0ueubp7Yem-KVvQ957rIK2g

http://www.exonline.com.mx/diario/noticia/primera/pulsonacional/disipan_amenaza_del_virus/587894

GaussianCopula (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also to be included in the section is a reference regarding 17 of the 19 deaths having occurred in the Mexican Capital D.F. and its encompassing state Estado de Mexico.

http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/

GaussianCopula (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest information regarding any updates within the Spread within Mexico have ignored the information provided here and yet have updated the information with the following nugget of relevance:

"As part of an outrageous marketing strategy, a mascot for the outbreak was released in Mexico City on April 29, depicting a blue plush virus with black eyes in reference of H1N1; it was however discontinued on May 1. [77]"

I believe that information to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. I ask editors to remove it and address my comments in this section.

Thank you.

GaussianCopula (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving the mascot doll to the Mexico page. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you PigFlu. I am left wondering at what point does the information that says:

"Although there have been reports of 152 "probable deaths"[83] in Mexico City and "more than 100 dead from swine flu",[84] the WHO had received reports of only 16 confirmed deaths total and explicitly denied the larger figure as of April 29.[85][86]"

Become irrelevant considering the up to date information that is being provided by the Mexican Health Ministry. Not only that, but the latest reports by the sources upon we base our information, in this case BBC in England and The Herald in Australia, are now using the more standardized information that we are also using with regards to the latest information about the H1N1 virus. In other words, how relevant is it to keep on saying what where the initial reports of deaths regarding the virus when we already have data which we consider accurate and from government sources with regards to actual deaths and confirmed cases.

That entire quote in regards to "there have been reports..." is very outdated and should be removed.

GaussianCopula (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be re-worded and some of the information should be moved. Maybe change it to something like: "Initial reports of 152 deaths were later decreased and the current amount confirmed by WHO is 16 with Mexico stating 101 other probable deaths."

Does this work for everyone? Hdstubbs (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Although I still don't find the need to include something that says what the initial reports where. It casts doubts about what the official numbers are. I will like to emphasize that the media reports, specifically the sources we are using BBC UK and The Herald Australia, are now reporting based on what the official Mexican Health Ministry or WHO numbers are. I believe that statement made sense on April 29 when there was a lack of information, now that we have dedicated resources which give out official timely data on the spread of the H1N1 virus, what is the purpose of having such a statement, which is by any account erronous?

GaussianCopula (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the spread in Mexico is about what people initially thought about the spread. Our job isn't to decide what is true, just report what we can verify. --Hdstubbs (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I just heard in the Mexican news that there are 22 (15 female and 7 male) confirmed deaths.Surely the figures will be updated on this web page as soon as possible: http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/--201.153.17.190 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Public reaction and discrimination

There should be at least a paragraph talking about all the reactions and some cases of discrimination against Mexicans, such as this ones:

• Case 1 Google Translate
• Case 2 Google Translate
• Case 3 Google Translate

--Aguilac (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Added Google Translate links to list --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quite interesting, too, and should be added to the article because it shows one of many other reactions to the flu, such as media reports, donation, rising the level by WHO etc.--201.153.17.190 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New Mexico First Confirmed Case

Can someone change the map, because New Mexico has a confirmed case http://www.krqe.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.181.215 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Direct link to the article is http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/health/health_krqe_albuquerque_case_of_h1n1_confirmed_200905022120 . But New Mexico isn't a separate country, and since the only map in this article shows countries, not U.S. states, it's not clear why the map needs to be changed. (The map at 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States already shows New Mexico as having at least one confirmed case.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu death toll, Change?

This is wierd! the death toll was use to be over 150: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LalqIYoarXE and they lowered it? Explain in the article why they lower it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeV18 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They didn't. 76.65.72.58 (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico lowered the number of probably death and has started only reporting confirmed cases now that they have the ability to test samples for the disease in their own country instead of waiting several days for samples flown to the U.S. and Canada to be processed. Rmhermen (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Cuba and Egypt!

Cuba has now ended all flights to Mexico to [25]!!!

And has Egypt just killed off 400,000 pigs[26]!--86.29.250.122 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Trading fear for starvation?

Per the link above:

"The H1N1 swine flu virus is spread by people and is not present in Egyptian animals but the government believes the cull could help quell any panic. But the United Nations said the mass cull of up to 400,000 pigs was "a real mistake". There is no reason to do that. It's not a swine influenza, it's a human influenza," said Joseph Domenech, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's chief veterinary officer. He said the FAO had been trying unsuccessfully to reach Egyptian officials. Pigs are mainly raised by Egypt's Christian minority. . . . Egypt would compensate farmers for their losses."

There are other dimensions to this story worth considering, but the most obvious one is the hunger factor that could be a direct byproduct of their actions. With pigs commonly weighing up to 500 pounds, the country could lose more lives to economic and hunger-related hardship than they do to the flu, and they already receive U.S. direct aid each year, some of which may now be needed for added reasons. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Flu summary

See- User talk:86.29.246.35.--86.29.248.143 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Socio-religious Perspective on Swine Flu

"God's vengeance on the infidels"...or whatever people mean when they say things like that...

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/05/faith_politics_and_swine_flu_in_the_middle_east.html

...if someone wants to throw it into a section. Might just be weak research by The Washington Post. Gwopy (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good angel on the case and is well worth mentioning!--86.29.248.143 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pigs in Alberta

The section "Government actions against pigs and pork" should be changed to include the infection of a pig farm, at its subsequent quarantine. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Added -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Helping pigs fly

While I agree that under normal, non-emergency times, certain facts should be put in the body instead of in the lead's introduction, I think an exception should be considered. The sentences below were removed from the lead since the subject is covered within the body. I'd vote to put them back -either as is, abbreviated, paraphrased, or even expanded - due the the timely importance of this kind of information. Not everyone can cut through the details of this article and we know that most visitors will not go much beyond a lead. And since pigs can't fly or escape potential slaughter by uninformed and panicky populations, I think we should reconsider.

"Although the virus is easily spread between humans, transmission of the virus from pigs to humans is rare, with only 12 cases in the U.S. since 2005, and there is no evidence that swine in the U.S. are now infected with this new virus. Nor can people become infected from eating any foods, including pork or pork products.

Any other thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying "the virus" is not very clear. There is no proof that this particular strain entered the human population via pigs (it is probable but not certain). Past strains of swine influenza have caused zoonotic infections, but that is quite distinct from the current outbreak that seems to be entirely driven by human-to-human transmission. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Although some influenza strains are easily spread between humans, transmission of strains that infect pigs to humans is rare, with only 12 cases in the U.S. since 2005, and there is no evidence that swine in the U.S. are now infected with this new virus. Nor can people become infected from eating properly-cooked pork or pork products.Tim Vickers

Given that pigs can acquire this strain from infected humans, and that eating poorly cooked pork from infected pigs almost certainly can infect humans, I think something more limited might be appropriate: "There is no risk of infection from this virus from consumption of well-cooked pork and pork products" ref: [27] Pontificalibus (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reports of human-to-pig transmission in this outbreak. Where did you read that? Reworded the piece on pork. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the WHO update I posted above: [28] --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. That will be useful for the swine influenza article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How about: "Although some influenza strains are easily spread between humans and other species, the influenza virus is killed by normal cooking procedures, so there is no risk of infection from consumption of well-cooked pork and pork products."--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Interspecies transmission is difficult and rare (as far as we know), so I'd prefer "some influenza strains can occasionally spread", but otherwise OK. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue, the opposite. Interspecies transmissions (viruses, parasites, bacteria, SeeZoonosis) are actually quite common (CowPox, Malaria, West Nile Virus). However these interspecies viruses rarely cause serious afflictions in humans and very rarely mutate into forms that can spread human to human. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant interspecies transmission of influenza. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Better. But the only problem is that it implies one can still become infected if it's not "well cooked." But your earlier comment stated, "eating poorly cooked pork from infected pigs almost certainly can infect humans," so we need to be very careful since this fact has not been proven as far as I know. The CDC only states "Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe." A lot of us know about other diseases from hookworms, for example, that can be caused by uncooked pork, so suggesting that people cook their meat well doesn't help much. But I've never heard about any viral infections being transmitted from eating any foods, cooked or uncooked; even including Mad Cow disease. If there are any experts out there, I'm personally curious about this. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mad Cow was spread to humans by eating cow (I don't know how well cooked). And spread among cows by farmers using cattle leftovers( particually brain matter) as feed for other cattle. However I still haven't stopped eating bacon cheeseburgers. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

True. But the disease wasn't caused by a virus. Even food poisining is caused by things other than viruses. So I'm still curious. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We know the H5N1 bird flu virus can be aquired by eating poorly cooked infected poultry. As this H1N1 demonstrate a better ability to infect humans than H5N1, than it seems reasonable to conclude that humans could become infected by eating poorly cooked pork. Although this is unproven and might not be suitable to add to the article, I don't think we should be wary of "implying" that "one can still become infected if pork is not well cooked." simply by stating that "there is no risk of infection from consumption of well-cooked pork". --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the bird flu transmission article " While cooking poultry to 70°C (158°F) kills the H5N1 virus, it is recommended to cook meat to 74°C (165°F) to kill all foodborne pathogens.<ref>[http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/news/sep1007ducks.htmlCIDRAP] article ''Germany finds H5N1 in frozen duck meat'' published September 10, 2007 </ref>" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and put a sentence at the end of the intro, feel free to change it around. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

HK Flu in intro

I have twice reverted edits removing reference to the Hong Kong flu pandemic in the intro. I think it is very useful to show people what the last pandemic was like in the intro, so they can quickly get an idea of what this is all about. However I don't want to revert this removal again and wonder what other people think --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The person deleting the historical reference is doing so because they think "it's not necessary." Since "necessity" is not a criteria for including facts in an article, or even for creating an article in the first place, it should be restored. IMO it gives the average reader some quick perspective without having to dig through links. It also gives facts that help readability. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the link to the flu pandemic is sufficient context for the pandemic itself (but I'm not adverse to having a link to HK flu in the intro). The way the sentence is worded it makes it sound like the HK flu is the reason for the CDC's actions, but there is no reference to show that. My real problem is that it is also misleading, because the real impetus behind the WHO (and the rest of the world's) fear/obsession with flu is the recent Avian flu and SARS outbreaks (this is my own unsourced opinion). The source you use makes no reference to the Hong Kong flu (maybe I'm missing it). Also, I'm confused about the 'necessity' comment. What would be a better 'wikiword' to use? Would pertinent have been better? I suppose necessity was a little vague. I'm a high school English teacher so I edit unnecessary content all the time. It is something useful to write on the margins of student papers without having to be too clear. Sorry.  :) --Hdstubbs (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the real fear behind the WHO's and CDC's speedy reaction was of a potential pandemic as deadly as the Spanish flu. Flu scare The genetic similarities are there and we're barely into the first wave of a new virus combination. I used the Hong Kong pandemic to give a fairly recent example for reference and to avoid extreme comparisons which might cause even more alarm. A recent survey by Harvard found that only 41% of the population knew what the word "pandemic" even meant, so mentioning the HK flu seemed like a reasonable compromise. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we both agree what it probably wasn't the HK flu that was motivating the CDC, and we have no source to say that it was. The way it reads right now is the HK flu is the reason that the CDC took the actions that they did. Until there is a source that says this then I am going to delete the reference to HK flu from that sentence. I think you have a good point about the need to historical context, we just need a source to support the idea that it was the motivator for the CDC. --Hdstubbs (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistake Found In Table showing infections.

Hi, I would like to report an Error, I don't have a wikipedia account so i am unable to correct it myself. in the table showing the ammount of H1N1 infections by country, the entry for New Zealand in not currently correct. the table says that there are 360 suspected cases, but according to the latest offical release from the New Zealand ministry of heath there are 89 suspected cases. There are 360 people in isolation but this figure includes anybody who may have been in contact with the diease, the people in isolation are not all showing symtoms, it is only a precaution. Suspected cases being people who have unconfirmed H1N1 symtoms, and probable cases being confirmed as type A influenza though the strain is not confirmed. could someone with an account please correct this?, its bugging me.

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/influenza-a-h1n1-update-twenty-030509?Open <- Lastest Ministry of health report - offical count is shown on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.109.56 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed Since the table is in a template, it has a separate discussion page. Value has been fixed and reference attached. Flipper9 (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu in China

One swine flu case was confirmed in China. Here is the source on CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/03/swine.flu/index.html#cnnSTCOther2 --Novis-M (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This included under Hong Kong. --62.69.130.82 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Monsoon approaching and India is still not awaken for this danger.

Though there are no confirmed cases found in India still, but in a country like India where the seasonal changes are very rapid and hygiene conditions are not at its best, it is vulnerable to spread this once hit. Further to that the Monsoon in India can also spread it if it reaches here by that time, as in Monsoon without any such influenza virus also most of the Indins suffer through cold and such small problems.

Enough care and awareness should be spread across different parts of society to ensure that this danger does not hit India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.216.71 (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Influenza viruses do worse in higher humidity, see Link Found Between Influenza, Absolute Humidity. Resurr Section (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It matters not. The part about the monsoon about to hit india should be under its own article, or even a current events page dealing with inda. the part about the flu doing worse in higher humidity should be under the article about the flu in general.D^rew S^mith 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggestion to add any mention of this to any article, just trying to sooth 144.36.216.71's frayed nerves. Resurr Section (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is understandable, however this is an off-topic discussion and usually we do not reply to OTD's except to point out 1)that they are OT, and 2)Why they are OT.D^rew S^mith 09:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews is the place for this sort of information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on sourcing and template structure

Please see Template talk:2009-2010 flu pandemic table/Archive 3#Synthesis, where a discussion is underway about the sourcing and figures used in this and similar articles and tables. Your input is welcomed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Name - ask for clarification of naming conventions from naming talk pages

suggest keep name with "swine flu" for now and escalate this naming discussion to get people who have been discussing naming issues for some time to come up with a more clarified consensus, perhaps using this specific naming discussion as an example to develop consensus on. This is because it seems like naming issues like "swine flu" vs "H1N1" are symptomatic of a much bigger and heavily discussed issue as follows [ note especially the "Oh boy, here we go again" :) ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_contradictory_naming_conventions

   * WP:NAME says to favor easily recognized names for general audiences over vocabulary of specialists.
   * WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions says exactly the opposite - to favor specilist vocabulary over commonly used names.

Which takes precendence? Why? The conflict should be resolved, or at least documented with usual procedure for dealing with it (precedence rules, etc.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go again. For extended discussion on this matter, see Archive 11, starting from this section and continuing on down and into Archive 12. Also see pretty much all of WT:FLORA. My personal view on this is that WP:NC (this policy) takes precedence, since it represents community-wide consensus, and that other specialized naming conventions should be changed to recognize this. Often, with specialized projects, there IS no easily recognized name; millions of kinds of flora/fauna/fungus/disease/insert specialized topic here are not commonly known, and thus the "most commonly used name" is the one used by experts in the field. So the majority of the time, the MEDMOS naming conventions are probably correct. However, all naming conventions should contain an exception that if a particular subject is known to the general public by a name different than what experts call it, and this name is widely known, then the layman's term should be favored over the expert's. So, I would disagree with the example given at the top of the MEDMOS naming conventions: Myocardial infarction should redirect to Heart attack, not the other way around. WP:Naming conventions is policy, while all of the WP:MOS pages are just guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.129 (talk)

Move to 2009 swine flu pandemic

WHO director Margaret Chan refers to it as such: [29]

For the first time in history, we can track the evolution of a pandemic in real-time.

WHO will be tracking the pandemic at the epidemiological, clinical, and virological levels.

The biggest question, right now, is this: how severe will the pandemic be, especially now at the start?

JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - should be 2009 flu pandemic as per 1918 flu pandemic. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO is now labeling this a pandemic, then we have to as well. Subjective severity or where it ends up doesn't matter, and is WP:OR. Note that I protected ALL of these articles earlier against non-admin moves as possible vandal targets. Once we have confirmation and broad consensus, any admin can move these--I just did all the ones linked off off the outbreak template which needs renaming then as well. We have a LOT of valid redirects here as well--all of them will need to be redone. Since (as ever with these articles) this is time sensitive and literally is a black and white binary decision, let's just poll and do this efficiently. rootology (C)(T) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support renaming these articles to -pandemic per the WHO

1. Per the WHO, use 2009 flu pandemic as the top-level naming structure going forward once the WHO begins calling it a pandemic in public documents/statements. If/when the WHO calls it a pandemic, it's 100% not sensationalism for us to do so as well. rootology (C)(T) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Once WHO officially calls it one, it is one. Move when needed. hmwithτ 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. When it gets to level 6 on the WHO scale then move. I don't think it's there yet.  GARDEN  21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   Did you mean to put that in the 'oppose'? Xclamation point 15:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is about eventually moving it to that title when it gets there. Rootology didn't necessarily say it was there now. I think most of the opposers misunderstood this. hmwithτ 21:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposed, and why

1. Not at WHO level 6 yet: which most closely matches the deifintion of a Pandemic --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. No yet. No sensationalism please. Yug (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Not yet. Just because WHO uses the term does not mean that it is the Common Name per our policies. Rmhermen (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Not yet. Margaret Chan is referring to the 'coming Pandemic'. Phase 5 represents an imminent Pandemic, but not one in progress. It is not yet a Pandemic and the WHO is not advertising it as such. Addendum: And what, dare I ask, is wrong with calling it an 'outbreak' or 'epidemic' anyway? Both are blatantly more applicable. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
5. It's not of sufficient scale in two WHO regions yet. http://www.who.int/about/regions/en/index.html kencf0618 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia follows the health authorities, who have not moved it to level 6 yet, and reliable news media. We should not strive to be tabloid journalists. Edison (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   WHO called it a pandemic. See the beginning of this section, or this link. I'm about to be bold and move it. hmwithτ 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   too bold. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I know, I wasn't being totally serious, but I don't understand why people don't want to move it. WHO is the ultimate authority on this, not Wikipedians or our opinions, per WP:OR. hmwithτ 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   Beware ultimate authorities. The WHO statement when they updated to 5 was for nations to get ready for a pandemic. The WHO always assumes that each outbreak will reach pandmic because that is how they operate. Its better for them to be safe than sorry. But WP operates diffrently, we wait until things 'are' rather than 'might be' or 'will be'.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm aware of how Wikipedia operates. My point is that when it's called a pandemic by WHO, we should move it. Most people are opposing based on the fact that they don't think it is one yet. However, if you read the first supporting vote (by Rootology), this poll is simply saying that it should eventually be moved there when WHO calls it a pandemic... not necessarily that it should be moved now. hmwithτ 13:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Not yet. While it is clear that the WHO is anticipating a pandemic, and that we are watching the likely evolution of one, we are not there yet. When and if the WHO goes to phase 6, I will support renaming this and all related articles. Wine Guy Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
8. According to the WHO guidlines, set forth by who, this is not a pandemic yet. As wikipedians we are supposed to only post verifiable facts. Also, for the dabate as to "swine flu" or "H1N1". Swine Flu is the common name. As wikipedians, we are supposed to use the common namesDrew R. Smith (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
9. No, let's avoid sensationalism. Also WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Too early to conclude it is a pandemic. Move if/when this is confirmed by the WHO. Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
11. There are no problems with the current title, but there are potential issues of sensationalism if we jump the gun and make a move too early. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
12. We need to wait until this reaches level 6... once it does it will classify as a pandemic... DeSalvionjr _Talk ^Contribs 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support removing "swine" from the page name

The statement by the World Organization for Animal Health that this strain has not been isolated from swine anywhere[30] persuades me that it is not swine influenza. Rather, it is human influenza that has acquired elements of avian and swine influenza. Also, given that at the time of discovery the strain was already in circulation in both Mexico and the US, I am in favor of calling it 2009 North American flu outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been numerous comments from doctors on television and print (I'd honestly Google them up but there are dozens+) is that it is from swine. I've seen comments almost daily from such animal activist type groups. If the WHO (and WHO > WOAH) calls it swine flu, so should we. rootology (C)(T) 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish flu didn't originate in Spain either, but that is still what it's most commonly called. And I agree with T too, that if the WHO calls it swine flu, then we should too. --Cessator (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the WHO is calling it Influenza A(H1N1) --Jay Yang (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's change the name. WHO has changed it, and clearly after Egypt it's obvious "Swine Flu" is just causing a lot of misunderstandings out there. I think it's time we follow suit. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

However people are calling it swine flu and that is the headline that people will look under.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I should have said article people are looking for. I was preoccupied with other things and did not edit sufficiently. However, I have come up with an argument for keeping the "swine" in the name. The article is at Battle of Bunker Hill even though it was fought at Breed's Hill. The issue is not accuracy, but common usage.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently people is calling it swine influneza, but in textbooks it will be called novel human influenza. Therefore we should follow WHO naming right now, in order to prevent future problems.Konegistiger (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A NCBI blast search of the genomes sequenced so far by the CDC and WHO labs, the large majority of similar sequences are swine influenza A genomes. WHO wants this influenza renamed not for scientific reasons but for political ones. The sequences for the 8 genes 6 show most simalarity to swine flu one to a virus found in ducks and one in a human from Wisconsin in 2003. The two non swine sequences are anotated as being similar to swine sequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.124.126 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The NCBI tool searches Genbank, and on Genbank the sequences are labeled by the species in which they were found. The 2009 outbreak sequences were found in humans, not in swine, and there is no evidence of zoonosis of this strain from swine to humans. Also, most influenza virus found in swine is widely believed to be derived from virus circulating in humans. --Una Smith (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming need: Name trouble (3)

Wikipedia have a big naming trouble, wikipedia have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu.

• Swine flu - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza
• 2009 swine flu outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak

People aren't getting the information they are searching for. A solution is NEED. Yug (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We have a big template direction people to this article in the swine flu article. If people are too stupid to follow it, we probably can't help them. Anyway how do you know people were even interested in this specific outbreak? Maybe the reason they visited the other article is because they came to an encylopaedia expecting info about what swine flu is in general and got it... Also CNN, BBC etc are news sites. We are an encylopaedia. Hence we have an article on swine flu which is distinct from this specific outbreak which some people don't even call or consider swine flu Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't insult others please. Their naivete may contribute to their misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to be naive. It's another to see a big link directing you to another article and not be able to follow it. Wikipedia is inherently designed to be a site where you have to know how to read and click links. When you can't wikipedia can't help you. Therefore there's no point discussing ways to solve an insolvable problem. In any case, such a discussion should happen at swine flu not here Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for once I agree with Nil Einne. Every page has links, redircts, and other confusing peices out the wazoo(wazoo sold seperately). If you cant follow links, you'll never get anywhere (I wish they made life this way. links are so much easier than road maps).Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I initially went to the other page, but when I saw that the current strain was in this article, I came here. However, I did want a little info on swine flu in general and it worked. The templates work, and we have to remember that although some people think it is the end of the world, it is not, and in five years a general overview of swine flu will be more searched for than the 2009 variety.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Abandoning the name Swine Flu

[31] WHO stopped using this term to protect pigs from being slaughtered, like done in Egypt already. Maybe Wikipedia should too? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.179.57 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In the US, HHS also changed the name, the alternative is a terribly bland name. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree It also has one more very important side effect, some religious Muslims and Jews will consider themselves safe as they don't consume "swine" (pork) meat while it has nothing to do with consuming when it comes to human to human transfer period. I am afraid it is a bit late now anyway. Perhaps WHO should educate people on that matter. Better, someone with better English and medical background should add about the consuming pig meat and the illness (which I suspect has nothing to do with each other) to prevent a large scale of population of globe ignoring precautions. It is already being called "Domuz Gribi" (Pig Influenza) in Turkish media and Turkish Wikipedia Wikipedia_TR Ilgaz (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization called it influenza A(H1N1) [52]". Sorry this does not sound quite right the way its worded. Perhaps "On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization announced it would be using the scientific term H1N1 influenza A, rather than swine flu." sherpajohn (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The officle name for the swine flu is "The H1N1 Virus" Cheers--Ken Durham (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 500 See WP:COMMONNAME. We use the most common name for article names. However, if the common name for this flu changes, the article can definitely be renamed. hmwithτ 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. "--24.87.88.162 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Searching google news for flu, brings up "swine flu", so that appears to still be the common name. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=flu Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - We HAVE TO free the pigs :] Yug (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - The name has been changed even by the WHO now to Influenza H1N1 A or AH1N1.

Agree - Wiki of all places should use the standardized name first and then the "slang" term.

 Disagree - "Swine Flu" is still the most common name for the outbreak. Let's wait and see if the media at large begin to use the new name first. magnius (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree H1N1 Virus is to officle name.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - I'm of a wait-and-see opinion on this one as well. Perhaps H1N1A will catch on, but H5N1 never caught on for bird flu, so I'm going to say probably not. As for Egypt, the pigs are kept for the small christian population and while sad, the numbers are pretty small and inconsequential to a nation that doesn't eat it for religious reasons. No other nations appear on the verge of deciding to cull. aremisasling (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To further explain, see the articles on some animals. We use common names, rather than their actual scientific names. hmwithτ 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - If and when a plurality of media sources adopt the WHO's name (or any other name) then the article should be renamed. Equilibrium007 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - When a common name isn't spreading dangerous misinformation, then sure, I can see just sitting on the sidelines. However, after what Egypt did, I think it's time to do the right thing. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree we write an encylopedia, we have no responsiblity to do the right thing, to protect pigs, to protect egyptans from themselves or to keep Vice President Biden from being an idiot. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The wikipedia's main mission is to spread knowledge and *not* misinformation. Let's make the change. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides information not knowledge. Knowledge is attained when a reader studies information; combines it with prior experiences, education, other information, and common snese. Wikipedia is not an agent of change; while we try to build a quaility product we are not responsible when people, lacking common sense, misuse it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - In some European countries, TV news have already changed the way they call the disease from "swine flu" to "influenza A" (probably to keep it short). But this is probably highly region dependent. Cochonfou (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - "Swine Flu" it will be, i cannot change by any directive.Jack007 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I think that the media is moving and I think we should too. Hdstubbs (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - The widely known name is still "Swine Flu". Plus, any other names can simply be added at the beginning of the article. (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I think the most important criterion is that people easily find in wikipedia what they are looking for, and everybody right now is talking about the "swine flu". Having said that, it looks like "2009 alpha flu" is going to be the official name of this thing.Dianelos (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Purely scientific, the word “swine” have no relevant to H1N1 Virus. Tiwonk (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - This strain is a Swine Influenza A (H1N1). It evolved in swine and is different to the common human Influenza A (H1N1) strains. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - Not until spammers start referring to it as N1H1 ;) --Wikiqueb (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree In addition to the reasons cited above, President Obama carefully called it "the H1N1 virus."

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. hmwithτ 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using the name "Chimeric Flu" as it is a mixture of avian, human and swine strains. Calling it H1N1 like WHO does is confusing, as there already is a Type A H1N1 going around this year (the one that is Tamiflu resistant). CDC seems to be moving toward H1N1 (2009) which is a bit better as the H1N1 from last season was discovered in a previous year. In a non-politically correct world, it would clearly be called Mexican Flu, since that is where it seems to have originated. Would it be more PC to call it Aztec Flu?

I think the problem is associating this strain with swine as problematic. People are avoiding swine products and that has a negative impact on the economy. Why perpetuate a misnomer. Further, how about a subtitle that says something like "Also known as Influenza AH1N1."???? BFritzen (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Likely the most neutral simple name for the strain would be "2009 H1N1" but, becuase most of the seasonal influenza in 2009 so far has also been subtype H1N1, there is potential to confuse the strain name with the outbreak name. --Una Smith (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The geographic region is the naming convention established for prior flu pandemics. Spanish flu, Hong Kong flu, Fujian flu, and so on. It would be consistent to name this one the 2009 Mexican flu. Otherwise in the historical literature the sequence of names for pandemics throughout history will be inconsistent and confusing if they switch back and forth between geographic labels and medical terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Go with WHO name of Influenza A(H1N1) virus. Fanra (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Egypt has two main conditions which led to the decision to slaughter the pigs 1-pigs are not bred in farms but they just live between piles of garbage, so if one gets infected it would be difficult to know or too late not as in as in case of Alberta Canada where Canadian officials say pigs in the province of Alberta have been infected with the new swine flu virus and are under quarantine. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZVkRqV2uZVim0TRk5R1ZBfovTCAD97UDDC2

2-egypt is already struggling with avian flue which is there for about 3 years now and the pigs play the middle ground between avian and human flu allowing the virus to change from avian to another virus which can pass to human easily or even to change to a human to human transferable virus Sonatasameh (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree Swine flu refers to any flu endemic in swine (pigs) H1N1 refers specifically to the strain we are talking about... Government organizations are trying to phase the name H1N1 in to replace swine flu and referring to it as H1N1 will help them do this... DeSalvionjr _Talk ^Contribs 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 is not a specific name of the virus causing this outbreak, any more than swine flu is. For example there was a different H1N1 virus casuing seasonal flu outbreaks last season. Also it's not our role to help government organisations phase out any name. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Influenza A(H1N1) --- WHO new name -- we should use this as the article name

30 April 2009 -- From today, WHO will refer to the new influenza virus as influenza A(H1N1). [32]--zayani (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Moving this article to 2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak

1. The WHO name is as official as it get ... --zayani (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. CDC is using Swine Flu as a parenthetical now. CNN is also interspersing H1N1 as the name throughout articles. I'd like to see a space between 'A' and '(H1N1}', though, i.e. 2009 influenza A (H1N1). --Elliskev 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

   Well, thats CDC not the WHO, and i think that the article should move to "2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak"--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Based on it being the scientific correct nomenclature, and the WHO advocating the name, I feel it is now appropriate to make the move, however hesitant I was before. The other common and inaccurate names (2009 swine flu, Mexican Flu, Novel flu, North American flu) can be redirects, so everyone will be able to find the article. We should use scientific nomenclature like we do for other diseases, rather than folksy terms. We redirect The clap to Gonorrhea. We use Tuberculosis instead of Consumption. Why should this be different? The use of appropriate scientific or medical nomenclature is part of being an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid. Edison (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to "common name". Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. To quote "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name". One example, the article influenza, not "flu". Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, Transmission and infection of H5N1, and Global spread of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
5. The name of this flu is A(H1N1) and several media outlets have already started using that name 1, 2 or 3. This Wikipedia article should follow suit.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Why can't we just call the article "the 2009 A(H1N1) "swine" flu outbreak". The official name should come first and have redirects from the slang terms- which is all they are now. Imagine if everyone were calling this the joe mamma flu...should wiki use that?
7. Change name to match WHO -Influenza A(H1N1) virus-. We can have plenty of redirect pages to guide people there and the article intro can mention the "alternate" names. Fanra (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
8. The WHO name is as official and the name "swine flu" is indirectly killing pigs worldwide.--Amore Mio (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
9. As I noted below, MOS:MED should trump WP:COMMONNAME here. Heart attack is myocardial infarction in Wikipedia, Legionnaire's Disease is Legionellosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, etc. And MOS:MED specifically gives an example of WHO guidelines as something to be followed in disease nomenclature. As it currently stands, the name seems to be in violation of the Medical Style Guide.66.30.15.98 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Government agencies want to phase in the term H1N1 as it is more specific than "Swine Flu" Changing the article name to refer to it as H1N1 would help their efforts in replacing swine flu with H1N1 DeSalvionjr _Talk ^Contribs 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposed (why?)

1. Per WP:COMMONAME: I know who Julius Caesar is but not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. We should use the common name. H1N1 is endemic in humans and causes about 50% of seasonal flu in humans, so there have been plenty of H1N1 outbreaks this year. The proposed name is not specific enough. Swine flu, at least, is accurate, as it originated in swine, and differentiates it from other influenza viruses. "Swine influenza" is preferable to naming it after countries or regions as these names can be very damaging to the country and can be wrong (the Spanish flu originated in Kansas, for example). --Oldak Quill 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
3. There are many extant influenza A(H1N1) strains. This strain is specifically a swine type H1N1 rather than a human type H1N1. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, we are just having a vote about "Abandoning the name Swine Flu" about 3 inches up the page. Can we give it a break for a while? Does anyone ever actually read WP:COMMONAME? --Pontificalibus (talk)

Jesus Christ, relax. It's a discussion about the evolution of the name outside Wikipedia. Did you even actually read the comments? --Elliskev 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:PRECISION. --Una Smith (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Precision? Why? Is there some other "2009 swine flu outbreak" that I should be concerned about? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but there are other influenza A(H1N1) strains infecting humans in 2009.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO and CDC are normally aimed at medical professionals and written to their level of education. We should be mindful of Wiki's readership and stick with the commonly-used terms, even when not "technically" accurate. In 2006, a Harvard School of Public Health survey found that only 41% of Americans knew what the term "pandemic flu" meant. Nuff said? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative" -- #Per WP:COMMONAME: --24.87.88.162 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to "move" it to different names with reference to one main article (which should have the most used name)? E.g. "North American influenza" and "Mexican flu" refer to "2009 swine flu outbreak" (just an example!) so that people can find the information they are looking for either way. I mean, that's all about: Finding the info they are looking for. For finding the "right name" of the main article, I prefer to wait and observe a little more how media handles and calls the topic.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. There is a way to do this. At alternative article names a "redirect" can be made to the main article (see Wikipedia:Redirect for details). Basically this works by putting text on an alternative article name such as North American influenza which points at the main article. The redirect text is of the form: #REDIRECT [[2009 swine flu outbreak]] . These are widely used on Wikipedia, and you'll find they already exist for this article (click on the link for North American influenza). --Oldak Quill 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We can redirect anything we want, but that still doesn't solve the great name debate. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Came across this article which might give us another reason to hold off for a while.

"WASHINGTON – No matter what you call it, leading experts say the virus that is scaring the world is pretty much all pig. So while the U.S. government and now the World Health Organization are taking the swine out of "swine flu," the experts who track the genetic heritage of the virus say this: If it is genetically mostly porcine and its parents are pig viruses, it smells like swine flu to them.

"Six of the eight genetic segments of this virus strain are purely swine flu and the other two segments are bird and human, but have lived in swine for the past decade, says Dr. Raul Rabadan, a professor of computational biology at Columbia University."

"Swine flu name change? Flu genes spell pig" (4/30/09)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote (read this before posting name change ideas)

I propose freezing the name for a few days. Yes, the WHO did say to stop using the term swine flu. But people are still calling it that, and probably will continue calling it that forever. As swine flu is what most people will search for in the search bar, we need the article to be right where they think it will be. Until we can get sources of common people calling it something other than swine flu the name should be stay as it is.

Support

Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just give it 48 hours to cool off. This whole thing is touching off a big unneeded argument that is sucking up too much space on the page. Lets cool the jets for a while folks and keep our heads on our shoulders. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

support - this sounds like a good idea, can definitely wait a day or two to see what happens, the setting up of redirects also sound like a good idea - so no matter which of the main names a person uses in the search box they go to the article. The name is being pushed from swine flu and WHO etc might be successful in getting name changed over time. Its good that the main names for the new flu are in the introduction as the many names for the new flu seems to be becoming an aspect of the new flu. Anyway as long as when someone puts "swine flu" or other major common name for the new flu in the search box they come to this article that is what i would suggest is the most important thing, second is what the article is actually called - though of course the effort to get the actual article name to be accurate and precise is good stuff. Sure change the name for the article about new flu if necessary if wiki rules, references and editors follow. Such a hot topic in such a hotly debated article could use a little cooling off [though maybe not on the talk page :) ]. P.S. kudos to all the editors working so hard on this article, its great and readers like me appreciate it even if you may not hear thank yous directly from us very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.209 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Just a comment that keeping the page name consistent with what people will search for in the search bar is not an argument that forces us into keeping this page name, since that issue can be dealt with via a redirect. Sancho 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however it would be a lot simpler to add a redirect to the less likely to be searched for pages. It would be especially helpful for people who have slow internet connections. Redirects nearly double the time it takes for me to get to an intended page.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside NotAvote: I'm Against all polls until we decide which poll we will use. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to change the article name.

I believe WHO officially named the disease to "Influenza A (H1N1)". Kadrun (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Yahoo!, WHO renamed the virus to H1N1 influenza A — Σxplicit 01:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The common name (the one people are googling most) is Swine flu. Until the everyman stops saying swine flu, neither will we.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine influenza is getting hammered with page views now. Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 will be next, eh? --Una Smith (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for Wiki to cite the new name and add some redirects, but not use the new name as the official title until the entire medical community, especially in the U.S., hashes it out. This has the telltale signs of a PC war and I don't think we need to get involved yet and take sides - just my opinion. Note the following excerpt from today's NY Times:

"At the organization’s [WHO] news conference on Thursday, its deputy director general, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, dutifully referred to the virus as “H1N1,” slipping up only once. Just two days before, Dr. Fukuda had declared that the new virus was a swine influenza virus, and that the organization had no plans to call it anything other than what it was. . . .

"The name may have changed, but the virus has not. Scientists who have examined its genetic material say that most of it comes from viruses known to infect pigs. But for various reasons, it seems, that is better left unsaid. There were some issues regarding the name swine flu that were brought to the attention of the scientific community,” said Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the disease centers. “Sensitive issues in other parts of the world. Among the issues were cultural ones. And in the United States, Mr. Skinner said, “I think there were issues around the use of the name and its impact on commerce.” New York Times --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another quote:

"Scientifically this is a swine virus," said top virologist Dr. Richard Webby, a researcher at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. Webby is director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza Viruses in Lower Animals and Birds. He documented the spread a decade ago of one of the parent viruses of this strain in scientific papers. It's clearly swine," said Henry Niman, president of Recombinomics, a Pittsburgh company that tracks how viruses evolve. "It's a flu virus from a swine, there's no other name to call it." AP News--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Webby also claims "Influenza A viruses are true zoonotic agents with many animal reservoirs" (PMID 17848061). It appears that he conflates "found also in animals" with "originates in animals", which may help to get his papers published but kind of overlooks the huge problem of how to root a phylogenetic tree in the presence of reassortment. --Una Smith (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone on google news is still calling it swine flu so a name change is inappropriate. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=flu .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the lighter side

Can you imagine a commercial break during the nightly news this coming fall?

"Weather got you down? Suffering from cold sniffles? Or maybe you're coming down with a touch of Influenza A-H-1-N-1). If so, you need a bottle of the new and fast-acting Anti-Influenza-A-H-1-N-1 drug: (fill in with long medical phrase - then add "Extra-strength" to the beginning and "Plus" to the end.) So call your doctor today. You'll be glad you did - and so will we. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This ALMOST sounds like a zombie outbreak... 11:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu article VS 2009 swine flu outbreak article

	Swine flu	2009 swine flu outbreak
Link is on the Main Page	no	yes
Visits by day	1.3 million wiki visitors/day, the most view, visitor all come here !	0.4 million / day, less than 1/3rd of the visitors come here
Talk page's activity by day	little activity, nobody here, just some wiki-users / day	very active, everybody here, several dozens of wiki-users / day
(Main) Topic	formerly: all strains of influenza in swine since decades. soon: the current 'swine flu' outbreak	formerly: the current 'swine flu' outbreak soon: the current 'swine flu' outbreak
trouble : if we do nothing, the 2 articles are becoming copies. Solution: choice better names to differentiate more clearly the 2 articles.

Yug (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the numbers in a situation like this is misleading. One common scenario is that people search for swine flu, get to that article, see the link to this article, and click it. That will count as a page view for both pages so almost all of the people who come to this page are double-counted. Oren0 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu was on the main page, in the "in the news" section, until editors asked them to remove the link. That can account for a lot of the page views. This too will pass, and I see nothing much we can or should do about it, except watch both articles and remove or relocate tangential information. Also, examine the incoming links. I fixed a bunch of links today that linked to Swine flu but should link to 2009 swine flu outbreak. You too can fix links. --Una Smith (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine influenza outbreak

Move to 2009 swine influenza outbreak? -download | sign! 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain please?F (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename article to 2009 influenza A (H1N1) outbreak

As of Thursday April 30th the WHO has officially ceased referring to this outbreak as "swine flu." This follows on the heels of Egypt's ill conceived decision to cull their swine. The A(H1N1) outbreak is not even transmitted by swine, but has a human to human transmission as well as containing avian and human influenza DNA. It may be a bit late in the game, but I think that Wikipedia should follow international convention in this matter and more appropriately rename the article "2009 influenza A (H1N1) outbreak"

The WHO site link is below and although it uses 'swineflu' in the address there is no longer any mention of it on their page and a statement declaring all future references to be to the A(H1N1) outbreak.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html Ibrmrn (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

H1N1

The official name is now influenza A (H1N1). Who thinks the name of the article should be changed? Use agree or disagree marks!--Ken Durham (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Ken Durham (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree No need to punish swines or the people who depend on pigs to make a living.Ht686rg90 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The name of the article will be the common name. The common name is still "swine flu". If it changes, we'll rename the article. Until then, hmwithτ 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. One example, the article influenza, not "flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 and Transmission and infection of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Authorities are NOT calling this the swine flu. Change the article title and discussion to reflect correct name. Grantmidnight (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak is preferable since it is by far the most accurate name. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree -- However I also think we should wait for the flu to be declared a pandemic by WHO. Then, as it has been suggested by other people, the article could be renamed to 2009 flu (or influenza) pandemic, which will be by far the most common and easy to understand name. Cochonfou (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree I think we should change it NOW and then later switch outbreak to pandemic IF the WHO changes the status. There is no legitimate reason to think that it will definitely be declared a pandemic. How much longer are we going to discuss this? Ibrmrn (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - Not until John Q. Public starts calling it H1N1. Xclamation point 22:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - per my answer to: "Who is South Korea's neighbor to the north?" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME. No matter how much this is re-asked, the answer remains the same. Also, remember WP:NOTAVOTE. Oren0 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree You can't get the virus from eating, raising, buying, selling, or even touching a pig. It was labeled swine flu because of a virus that actually occurred in 1918, where both pigs and people apparently, back then, got sick.SOURCE Since many people see this page, it could also be affecting Pork Sales. It's better that we call it by its official name.Qwertluis (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree : DisagreeI think that we should stick with the common name, but I think the common name among official sources is becoming H1N1 Influenza A (but I'm fine with just H1N1). John Q public calls influenza 'flu' and all tissue paper 'Kleenex' that doesn't mean those should be the article names. If we redirect from swine flu and include an explanation of naming discrepancies in the first paragraph I think that would be the most accurate. --Hdstubbs (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just changed my vote from agree to disagree based on the point made by the IP user below.

 Disagree per Xclamation point. People aren't saying "H1N1", just as no-one says "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson". ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 DisagreeInteresting to consider a quote from wikipedia article [Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H1N1#Russian Flu] "The more recent Russian flu was a 1977–1978 flu epidemic caused by strain Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)." The common name in this example is Russian Flu, the accurate name is not H1N1 but "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". The name game seems to mature into a distinctive common name such as "Russian Flu" and a technically specific name based on the scientific naming protocol such as "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". H1N1 does not fit into either name type - people, media just are not using a technical name like H1N1 and the technical types want a specific name like "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". Its clear that alot of editors see a need to make changes to the name of the article so support efforts to dig into the naming issues. Suggest saying something like "common names for the new flu are swine flu, mexican flu, ..." and also say the technical name for the new flu strain is "Influenza A/Mexico City/90/77 (H1N1)" see [Influenza_A_virus#Variants and subtypes]"Variants are identified and named according to the isolate that they are like and thus are presumed to share lineage (example Fujian flu virus like); according to their typical host (example Human flu virus); according to their subtype (example H3N2); and according to their deadliness (example LP). So a flu from a virus similar to the isolate A/Fujian/411/2002(H3N2) is called Fujian flu, human flu, and H3N2 flu." [ note again the pattern of a couple common names and an extended specific technical name]. The article is doing well tracking the common names used to name the new flu and somewhere out there is a medical reference that would give us the extended specific technical name. So disagree because H1N1 is not a very good common name and H1N1 is not a very good extended specific technical name. However definitely think that all the talk about the name is getting at something, there might be something more going on - perhaps says something about the way it is taking time for cdc types to get a handle on the new flu, or perhaps something about the way the media deals with the start of an outbreak, it could say something about the hype, frenzy and political lobbying effects - all things that are starting to become more clearly stated in the article. So disagree as H1N1 just is not accurate either commonly or scientifically and suggest get some more references like "A/California/09/2009(H1N1)-like" especially the Mexico City isolate. Mainly suggest keep up the good work tracking the common names, relative useage and when/if the most common name changes from "swine flu" then see about doing the name changes and adding redirects etc as per all the wiki rules and editor consensus etc. And finally with all the editing interest in the name there could be another paragraph or reference somewhere for the article, maybe along the lines of other flu/diseases that had naming history/controversy - maybe we will be able to reference that these type of naming issues are typical of these type of influenza outbreaks, that is to say maybe naming conflicts are part of a big outbreak because of how fast and widespread its outbreak is [no original research here eh ;) ]. [oops, so much more name talk, sigh, looks like I've got the name bug as well, new name flu?, sorry :) ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 (talk • contribs)

 Disagree Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. per Oren0 (talk) however because of how much this is re-asked, keep reasking, check also the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTAVOTE etc for some interesting discussion, what would an encylopedia have as a name for this article? - perhaps we don't know yet, perhaps the answer to this naming issue only comes over time as we see what the common useage is, so maybe there is a legitimate question as to what to call a "news" type article that keeps changing, however for now seems "swine flu" but because this is a "news" type article whose subject is dynamic and changing perhaps we will have to keep thinking about how to name this article - perhaps for news type articles it should be expected that there will be more than one obvious name?, redirects help of course. maybe it does not matter what we call the article as long as it is a major common name, we have redirects/listings of the major common names in the article and generally cover any naming issues in the article - so that logic says that the naming is pretty much ok, the article is ok the way it is, any new major common names can be added with redirects. Note that it does not matter that someone official says to change new flu name[to wikipedia], it matters what name is actually used and what name is most commonly used. After all the hubbub and hoopla is over editors can look back and see a better name, of course leaving open to some big twist or turn in the new flu story that might argue for a major name change. So in sum seems like the editors have got this pretty right so far so disagree with name change for now but leaving it open to significant evidence that common name useage has changed.

Agree - chg to 2009 H1N1 flu and redirect for Mexican flu / Swine flu -- Fernvale (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Feds drop 'swine flu,' for 'H1N1 flu' President Obama and U.S. health officials referred to the new strain as "H1N1 flu." Concerned that the term "swine flu" is hurting pork sales, U.S. Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack and trade officials have also switched to "H1N1."

 Note: Medical topics tend to have medical names on Wikipedia. For example "Heart attack" is a redirect to Myocardial infarction, "Crib death" is Sudden infant death syndrome, "Cat scratch fever" is Cat-scratch disease(!), "Polio" is Poliomyelitis, and of course, "Mongolism" is a redirect to Down syndrome. For most of these the common name's Google hits outnumber the medical name by the millions. Resurr Section (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How is this for neutral? (following the lead of Prince here) We should call it: "The influenza formerly known as swine flu." :DBFritzen (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - WHO calls it A(H1N1). So should we. The popular names can be listed in the lede, and set up as redirects. We're an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. We should go by what the most reliable sources say. I am sure that any medical journal articles will now use A(H1N1), not "swine flu". Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Considering that swine flu can redirect to A(H1N1) flu, I agree with using the official source, which I consider it to be the World Health Organization. GaussianCopula (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME - perhaps this will change as time goes on, and the situation should be monitored. But right now this IS swine flu. Virtually any media organization can be used as a source for that. The WHO may be a health organization, but they are far from being an authority on what words human beings choose to use in their daily lives. 208.103.249.128 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree Swine flu is now the commonly accepted name, so should continue to be used for the time being. We could rename it "2009 flu pandemic" (if we get to pandemic levels) as the Spanish flu epidemic is called 1918 flu pandemic here on wiki. I'd suggest that the article is renamed "2009 flu pandemic" is we reach level 6 magnius (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Question: Neutral   Where is the list of medical articles that call this h1n1 flu?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree Want to help the pigs from getting slaughtered.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - chg to 2009 H1N1 flu and redirect for Mexican flu / Swine flu ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 18:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree everyone refers it as swine flu. I don't care what WHO says. Raysonho (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME --Tocino 20:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree to a move to 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak/2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Official name and "swine flu" is, IIRC, discouraged in widespread discourse because of the panic that could ensue regarding pigs. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree any redirects will take care of ensuring John Q Public will get to the information they are seeking, and the article will be using the officially designated name rather than perpetuating the common yet incorrect term. Flipper9 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree This seems pretty clear cut to me, guys. Either we keep it as is, with an extremely misleading, unscientific name for an article relating to a disease that *has* an official scientific name, or we change the title to use the proper scientific name. Is the article for Mononucleosis entitled "Kissing Disease"? No. The common name is not always the correct one to use in an encyclopedia. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree Government agencies want to phase in H1N1 and no longer use Swine Flu to refer to it. Changing swine flu to H1N1 in the article name would help their efforts in doing so...

Agree The media has stopped referring to this as the swine flu. So should we. 76.192.144.118 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Really? [33] [34] --Tocino 03:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As of this signing I count 16 agree and 12 disagree. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak would be a more encylopedic and more accurate name even though the authorities in the UK are still calling it "swine flu" [35]. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to move the article because I think there is a rough consensus, trending towards agree, and the recent news stories have mostly flipped over to H1N1. We should follow them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, hard to decide what to move it to. The disease article is Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. Looking at 1918 flu pandemic I am wondering if this article should be 2009 flu outbreak. That way we can sidestep the issue of what type of flu. Everyone will understand what we are talking about and a title like 2009 Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 outbreak is painful to type. How do folks feel about 2009 flu outbreak (eventually to be changed to 2009 flu pandemic if things get that far). This would match what we already have for 1918. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support 2009 flu outbreak (eventually to be changed to 2009 flu pandemic). This avoids confusion with H1N1 seasonal flu, is supported by 1918 flu pandemic and covers us if the virus reassorts and becomes a HxNx pandemic. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps wait for it to be classes a pandemic, then move to 2009 influenza pandemic (or 2009 flu pandemic). No need to be hasty on this one, it seems it will be declared as such before long and redirects negate most of the effects of a name change anyway. |→ Spaully^₪† 01:17, 5 May 2009 (GMT)

Agree We should go with the World Health Organization. Even news sources such as CNN and NBC in the U.S. use the H1N1 term, perhaps with "Swine Flu" as a "scare headline." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Edison (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

Please discuss rather than vote. Voting is evil. hmwithτ 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree Raysonho (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

!vote. Xclamation point 23:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already been discussed at length, and is pretty simple...either you are for the change, or for perpetuating falsehoods. Take your pick, otherwise without consensus, an edit war will ensue. Flipper9 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be pointed out

The Manual of Style with regard to medicine, if it's not already been pointed out. The naming conventions state:

The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term (common, unscientific, and/or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded.

This is the textbook definition. "Swine flu" has been superseded as the scientific name, at least with regards to WHO. Whether it's H1N1 or H1N1(A) is debatable, but given the MOS, we shouldn't have it at "swine flu" anymore. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• As the guideline (and for that matter me, above) point out, heart attack (18,100,000 Google hits) redirects to myocardial infarction (4,650,000 Google hits). There is no doubt that the MOS:MED guideline would have this article at a more medical name than "swine flu". The question is, what is the exact name? I feel that once that name has been made absolutely clear, including spacing and punctuation, this article should be so named. By then this frenzy over this non-pandemic should have died down. If it becomes a pandemic, I would support a name chance to 2009 flu pandemic as magnius suggests above. That name will only be a problem if there is a second flu pandemic this year. Resurr Section (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• This is the most clearly stated Wikipedia policy on this subject, and this advice should be followed immediately. As pointed out, heart attack is myocardial infarction in Wikipedia, Legionnaire's Disease is Legionellosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, etc. For all the voting nonsense and the citation of WP:COMMONNAME, it seems to be superseded in every other article by the MOS:MED guideline. The MOS:MED guideline even *specifically* states that WHO guidelines are an example of a source to follow for names of diseases. Come on, Wikipedia -- follow your own policies and change this now. 66.30.15.98 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Wikipedia, follow your own policies and LEAVE IT AS IS. The virus may be the same old one which has caused concern as in previous outbreaks, but this IS the 2009 Swine Flu Outbreak, and thats how it will be commonly know 20 years from now just as it is today. And with all due respect to the not-a-vote lobby, this is the same tired policy/weak excuse which is trotted out when people want something change in contrary to consensus or when consensus has yet to be reached. Take the time to *read* the votes and you will see there is substantive discussion attached to those yeas and nays. Personally I dont understand why this has to be so political. The virus is H1N1 or whatever. There is already an article about that - H1N1. But that is not what this article is about. This article is about the current outbreak which everyone recognizes as Swine Flu. That's just the way it is and no wikipedia policy is going to change that. The origin of the name and it basis in truth is irrelevant. If name is misleading then add a sentence to the into explaining the origin of the name - this is wikipedia and YOU can do it yourself. Just because the WHO decides to use different terminology in their own press releases and the american's new messiah also calls it so to appease the pork lobby does not change facts. The korean war was officially call a 'police action' by the self-proclaimed authorities, but that doesn't mean we bow to the political winds and use such names for wikipedia titles. Read the comments, acknowledge the lack of consensus, be professional, and leave the title alone until the dust settles. 208.103.249.128 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• How can you be sure that's what it's going to be in twenty years? That's speculative. On the other hand, it is a fact that the official name for this is just the influenza A(H1N1) outbreak. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies 208.103... I did not intend to be unprofessional. If anything, I think your response is an unnecessary escalation and actually more unprofessional than my original post unintentially was. I actually did read the comments in the voting before posting, as I read this entire talk page (and most of the archives). I also read the various Wikipedia policies that were cited, and MOS:MED seems most relevant. I apologize if I was slightly too strong in suggesting the change happen sooner rather than later, but it appears that most of the votes above that you cite where given before any mention of MOS:MED. I therefore assumed that they were unaware of that information and urged prompt reconsideration. I did not, as you did, assume that they simply ignored information and discussion. Is there anything that I said that said otherwise? And, by the way, if we went by your standard about how it will commonly be known 20 years from now, we should retitle the AIDS article as Gay-related immune deficiency, as it was originally known. I'm not trying to be funny; I'm just following the logic. Again, I apologize for any misunderstandings, but I am saddened that you felt the need to escalate, particularly if you feel so strongly that policies are in your favor already. You might have another perspective on this question if you were a pork farmer. But hey, I'm happy to have cheaper pork to buy for the next few months, so I guess there's another benefit for some of us at least. And not that anecdotal data matters anymore than voting in Wikipedia policy, but on my campus, all official references to the virus are H1N1, and "swine flu" seems to have become something of a jocular way to refer to it, since everyone knows it's technically wrong. 66.30.15.98 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Has the common name changed?

I've been hearing less and less people actually call it "swine flu". This may no longer be the "common name". Surprisingly, I've heard students around my university actually calling it H1N1 influenza A, while discussing it. This may slowly be becoming the most common name, among informed people, at least. I've only heard "swine flu" used recently when joking about it. This is all WP:OR, of course, as a judgment of a common name would have to be. Thoughts? hmwithτ 16:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2009 swine flu outbreak - It is wrong to refer as Swine flu which mean for mammals related flu, should be either 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak or 2009 flu outbreak and redirect for Mexican flu, the human flu disease can spread easily from person to person now, not pig to person.
• 1918 flu pandemic => Pandemic flu is virulent human flu that causes a global pandemic, of serious illness. Because there is little natural immunity, the disease can spread easily from person to person.♦

Flu Terms Defined - http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/ -- Fernvale (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

By that logic it is wrong to refer to the 1918 flu pandemic as such because the virus affects people and does not infect whole numbers or dates in the 20th century. Venus flytraps do not originate on venus, nor do they catch flies on venus - it is just a name. The name of this pandemic, like it or not, is Swine Flu. It doesn't matter what the WHO or Obama or pig advocacy groups call it - that is just the name we're stuck with. Lets not stand on a soapbox for the WHO. 208.103.249.128 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Terms come and go all the time, based on whether they're appropriate. WHO have renamed it because the old name isn't particularly appopriate anymore. But who cares, really, seeing as we have a negro in the White House, who beat a cripple and the mother of a mongoloid. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

About "debate over name"

Why sould «Henry Niman of Recombinomics»'s opinion - note the red links - should be weighted against that of the World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal Health, and several governments? Not that it should not, I don't know, but why should I, a reader, care about what Mr. Niman says? - Nabla (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

He is notable enough to be quoted in that Yahoo News/Associated Press Science article that is cited. Some readers don't regard the World Health Organization as worth listening to either. Wikipedia just tries to present a balanced neutral point of view with referenced facts. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious why some readers will consider WHO worth listening to - it is a UN organization - and it acceptable that some don't, for sure. But the question remains, why should any reader consider Mr. Niman's opinion worth any weight at all? Again, I am not saying it is not worthy, I am saying the article makes no effort to say why his opinion is worth anything. Why Henry Niman but not Richard Webby and/or Edwin D. Kilbourne, quoted with the same opinion in the same source? - Nabla (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, if a reliable source thinks it's worth quoting him, that's enough for us. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Niman specialises in studying virus genomes. "[H]e developed the flu monoclonal antibody, which is widely used throughout the pharmaceutical, biotech, and research industries in epitope tagging techniques."[36] Seems like a good qualification to me. Rmhermen (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm not expressing myself properly, as you (both) insist in replying to what I am not askin, instead reply to what I don't ask...

I am not contesting Nimam as a source (yes if the press uses him, we can too).

I am asking two things:

1. How will the readers know how to weight his opinion (I presume Niman is not worlwide famous)

That up to the readers, it's not our resonsibility - we just try and write a balanced article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Why Niman and not any of the other "many experts"?

His quote helps to make a balanced article maybe? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to him, as useless. The claimm that "many" scientists have that opinion gains no more weight with that. - Nabla (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"1. How will the readers know how to weight his opinion (I presume Niman is not worlwide famous)"

That up to the readers, it's not our resonsibility - we just try and write a balanced article.

"2. Why Niman and not any of the other 'many experts'?"

His quote helps to make a balanced article maybe? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"it's not our resonsibility"... I wonder why, then, we even try to write and source any articles at all... we may leave it to readers to find it themselves, after all it is all sourced and thus all already available on the web.

"His quote helps to make a balanced article maybe?". No, saying many disagree helps to make a balanced article, quoting one 'random' individual out of that many gives undue weight to him.

But whatever... - Nabla (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps attributing the piece to its AP author will be an acceptable compromise? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To me too. Thanks! - Nabla (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it. Removing the quotation from a molecular virologist who specializes in tracking mutations including of influenza but happens to disagree with the WHO for a vaguely worded reference to an AP pool reporter? Not NPOV to me. Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)